More Homosexuals Backing Off

[MaryL]

I am agnostic. But I stand with my Christian friends against Homosexuality. It's a mental disease, a mental health issue. Homosexuality doesn't deserve rights, it deserves treatment. Not scorn or hate.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Who is kidding who here ? Homosexuality is a glorified fetish, a sexual perversion/dysfunction. It's a psychological flaw, not a biological necessity. So Gays are not so much new found a class of people rather than just garden variety perverts with wealth reinventing themselves .

Who is kidding here?

There are homophobes who would gladly make homosexuals wear pink armbands and ship them off to concentration camps.

And there are totalitarian liberals who will do the same to business owners who refuse to pay court-imposed fines for business owners who choose to exercise their human right to freely chose their associations. Liberals will bankrupt these people for daring to exercise their human rights. They'll sue them and courts will fine them. Then contempt of court judgement will send them to jail.

What I'm detailing is a far more likely outcome than your pink concentration camp scaremongering, for there were no homosexual concentration camps in America before homosexual marriage became legal, so there is no basis in fact to suppose that they would be imposed in the coming years.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Who is kidding who here ? Homosexuality is a glorified fetish, a sexual perversion/dysfunction. It's a psychological flaw, not a biological necessity. So Gays are not so much new found a class of people rather than just garden variety perverts with wealth reinventing themselves .

Who is kidding here?

There are homophobes who would gladly make homosexuals wear pink armbands and ship them off to concentration camps.

And there are totalitarian liberals who will do the same to business owners who refuse to pay court-imposed fines for business owners who choose to exercise their human right to freely chose their associations. Liberals will bankrupt these people for daring to exercise their human rights. They'll sue them and courts will fine them. Then contempt of court judgement will send them to jail.

What I'm detailing is a far more likely outcome than your pink concentration camp scaremongering, for there were no homosexual concentration camps in America before homosexual marriage became legal, so there is no basis in fact to suppose that they would be imposed in the coming years.

Well, you're correct, of course. But at some point, one of these Americans will turn this attack upon their persons, into an attack upon the sexually abnormal persons and stack up the evil fucks like cord wood. And an American Jury will acquit them and the most dangerous place in the US to be, in front of the CLOSET!

 

[bodecea]

First, we got the mayor of Houston tucking her tail and rescinding her stupid subpoenas. Now we learn the city fathers of Coeur de' Alene, Idaho say the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel owners don't have to perform gay weddings.


Is common sense – and our rights – finally taking hold in America? Or perhaps fighting back against the Gay Nazis is winning.


Read the article @ Remember that Hitching Post gay wedding case Yeah 8230 never mind Hot Air

It isn't enough. The Mayor must be driven out of office / forced to resign. It isn't a victory until she is packing up her office in a box and escorted out the door, Longknife. I was talking to someone today about this and told him that is what they are going to have to do. She must lose her job. No two ways about it.

Why? Because you don't like her doing.....what?

 

[bodecea]

Who is kidding who here ? Homosexuality is a glorified fetish, a sexual perversion/dysfunction. It's a psychological flaw, not a biological necessity. So Gays are not so much new found a class of people rather than just garden variety perverts with wealth reinventing themselves .

Who is kidding here?

There are homophobes who would gladly make homosexuals wear pink armbands and ship them off to concentration camps.

And there are totalitarian liberals who will do the same to business owners who refuse to pay court-imposed fines for business owners who choose to exercise their human right to freely chose their associations. Liberals will bankrupt these people for daring to exercise their human rights. They'll sue them and courts will fine them. Then contempt of court judgement will send them to jail.

What I'm detailing is a far more likely outcome than your pink concentration camp scaremongering, for there were no homosexual concentration camps in America before homosexual marriage became legal, so there is no basis in fact to suppose that they would be imposed in the coming years.

Well, you're correct, of course. But at some point, one of these Americans will turn this attack upon their persons, into an attack upon the sexually abnormal persons and stack up the evil fucks like cord wood. And an American Jury will acquit them and the most dangerous place in the US to be, in front of the CLOSET!

A Right Wing crazy saying what they REALLY think about their fellow Americans.

 

[Syriusly]

Who is kidding who here ? Homosexuality is a glorified fetish, a sexual perversion/dysfunction. It's a psychological flaw, not a biological necessity. So Gays are not so much new found a class of people rather than just garden variety perverts with wealth reinventing themselves .

Who is kidding here?

There are homophobes who would gladly make homosexuals wear pink armbands and ship them off to concentration camps.

And there are totalitarian liberals who will do the same to business owners who refuse to pay court-imposed fines for business owners who choose to exercise their human right to freely chose their associations. Liberals will bankrupt these people for daring to exercise their human rights. They'll sue them and courts will fine them. Then contempt of court judgement will send them to jail.

What I'm detailing is a far more likely outcome than your pink concentration camp scaremongering, for there were no homosexual concentration camps in America before homosexual marriage became legal, so there is no basis in fact to suppose that they would be imposed in the coming years.

Well, you're correct, of course. But at some point, one of these Americans will turn this attack upon their persons, into an attack upon the sexually abnormal persons and stack up the evil fucks like cord wood. And an American Jury will acquit them and the most dangerous place in the US to be, in front of the CLOSET!

Ah once again the homophobe Conservative fantasizes about the mass murder of homosexuals......like a true Patriot.......

 

[Syriusly]

Who is kidding who here ? Homosexuality is a glorified fetish, a sexual perversion/dysfunction. It's a psychological flaw, not a biological necessity. So Gays are not so much new found a class of people rather than just garden variety perverts with wealth reinventing themselves .

Who is kidding here?

There are homophobes who would gladly make homosexuals wear pink armbands and ship them off to concentration camps.

And there are totalitarian liberals who will do the same to business owners who refuse to pay court-imposed fines for business owners who choose to exercise their human right to freely chose their associations. Liberals will bankrupt these people for daring to exercise their human rights. They'll sue them and courts will fine them. Then contempt of court judgement will send them to jail..

Then change the laws?

The lawsuits can only happen because there are laws that prohibit discrimination.

If you don't like the laws- change the laws.

And going to court- like this couple in Idaho- is a legitimate way to change the law.

Just as homosexuals suing to change the law is legitimate.

 

[Syriusly]

I am agnostic. But I stand with my Christian friends against Homosexuality. It's a mental disease, a mental health issue. Homosexuality doesn't deserve rights, it deserves treatment. Not scorn or hate.

What medicine cures homosexuality? Do you believe that would be a vaccine? Or an anti-biotic?

Or maybe you are more into the idea of shock treatment?

 

[Syriusly]

They never did say that they had to perform gay weddings.

They 'back off' to their original position.

Ah, to live in a liberal world where what one imagines becomes the reality of one's world. Sadly, the rest of us live in the real world:

Initially, the city said its anti-discrimination law did apply to the Hitching Post, since it is a commercial business. Earlier this week, Coeur d'Alene city attorney Mike Gridley sent a letter to the Knapps’ attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom saying the Hitching Post would have to become a not-for-profit to be exempt.​

And indeed- the Knapps had filed papers

They never did say that they had to perform gay weddings.

They 'back off' to their original position.

Ah, to live in a liberal world where what one imagines becomes the reality of one's world. Sadly, the rest of us live in the real world:

Initially, the city said its anti-discrimination law did apply to the Hitching Post, since it is a commercial business. Earlier this week, Coeur d'Alene city attorney Mike Gridley sent a letter to the Knapps’ attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom saying the Hitching Post would have to become a not-for-profit to be exempt.​

However, according to city officials and the lawsuit itself, the Hitching Post filed papers with the Idaho Secretary of State identifying itself as a religious corporation on Oct. 6, the day before the 9th Circuit struck down Idaho’s ban. The city’s ordinance explicitly states that religious corporations are exempt from the law.

The lawsuit came as a surprise to city officials, who described conversations with the Knapps up until last week as “cordial.”

“We have never threatened them. We have never sent them a letter warning them. There was no ‘we’re going to throw you in jail’ kind of stuff. So we were mildly surprised, well, totally surprised by the lawsuit,” City Attorney Mike Gridley told The Huffington Post.

Moreover, while the lawsuit claims that the Knapps have already turned away multiple same-sex couples, Gridley said that the city had received no complaints about the Hitching Post and had no idea who these couples might be.

How did the Knapps come up with that jaw-dropping figure of 180 years? According to the lawsuit, the city ordinance sets forth fines up to $1,000 and jail time up to 180 days for every day of a violation. The Knapps' complaint reasons that they "risk going to jail for 180 years and being fined $365,000" if they refuse to marry one couple for one year.

Is that a real possibility? Gridley laughed. “That's not correct. Again,” he said.

“I want to make clear," said Gridley, "that the Hitching Post, or any other minister that I’m aware of, is not subject to our ordinance."

Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings

Linking to a hate site?

No

However, according to city officials and the lawsuit itself, the Hitching Post filed papers with the Idaho Secretary of State identifying itself as a religious corporation on Oct. 6, the day before the 9th Circuit struck down Idaho’s ban. The city’s ordinance explicitly states that religious corporations are exempt from the law.

The lawsuit came as a surprise to city officials, who described conversations with the Knapps up until last week as “cordial.”

“We have never threatened them. We have never sent them a letter warning them. There was no ‘we’re going to throw you in jail’ kind of stuff. So we were mildly surprised, well, totally surprised by the lawsuit,” City Attorney Mike Gridley told The Huffington Post.

Moreover, while the lawsuit claims that the Knapps have already turned away multiple same-sex couples, Gridley said that the city had received no complaints about the Hitching Post and had no idea who these couples might be.

How did the Knapps come up with that jaw-dropping figure of 180 years? According to the lawsuit, the city ordinance sets forth fines up to $1,000 and jail time up to 180 days for every day of a violation. The Knapps' complaint reasons that they "risk going to jail for 180 years and being fined $365,000" if they refuse to marry one couple for one year.

Is that a real possibility? Gridley laughed. “That's not correct. Again,” he said.

“I want to make clear," said Gridley, "that the Hitching Post, or any other minister that I’m aware of, is not subject to our ordinance."

Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings

 

[bodecea]

They never did say that they had to perform gay weddings.

They 'back off' to their original position.

Ah, to live in a liberal world where what one imagines becomes the reality of one's world. Sadly, the rest of us live in the real world:

Initially, the city said its anti-discrimination law did apply to the Hitching Post, since it is a commercial business. Earlier this week, Coeur d'Alene city attorney Mike Gridley sent a letter to the Knapps’ attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom saying the Hitching Post would have to become a not-for-profit to be exempt.​

And indeed- the Knapps had filed papers

They never did say that they had to perform gay weddings.

They 'back off' to their original position.

Ah, to live in a liberal world where what one imagines becomes the reality of one's world. Sadly, the rest of us live in the real world:

Initially, the city said its anti-discrimination law did apply to the Hitching Post, since it is a commercial business. Earlier this week, Coeur d'Alene city attorney Mike Gridley sent a letter to the Knapps’ attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom saying the Hitching Post would have to become a not-for-profit to be exempt.​

However, according to city officials and the lawsuit itself, the Hitching Post filed papers with the Idaho Secretary of State identifying itself as a religious corporation on Oct. 6, the day before the 9th Circuit struck down Idaho’s ban. The city’s ordinance explicitly states that religious corporations are exempt from the law.

The lawsuit came as a surprise to city officials, who described conversations with the Knapps up until last week as “cordial.”

“We have never threatened them. We have never sent them a letter warning them. There was no ‘we’re going to throw you in jail’ kind of stuff. So we were mildly surprised, well, totally surprised by the lawsuit,” City Attorney Mike Gridley told The Huffington Post.

Moreover, while the lawsuit claims that the Knapps have already turned away multiple same-sex couples, Gridley said that the city had received no complaints about the Hitching Post and had no idea who these couples might be.

How did the Knapps come up with that jaw-dropping figure of 180 years? According to the lawsuit, the city ordinance sets forth fines up to $1,000 and jail time up to 180 days for every day of a violation. The Knapps' complaint reasons that they "risk going to jail for 180 years and being fined $365,000" if they refuse to marry one couple for one year.

Is that a real possibility? Gridley laughed. “That's not correct. Again,” he said.

“I want to make clear," said Gridley, "that the Hitching Post, or any other minister that I’m aware of, is not subject to our ordinance."

Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings

Linking to a hate site?

No

However, according to city officials and the lawsuit itself, the Hitching Post filed papers with the Idaho Secretary of State identifying itself as a religious corporation on Oct. 6, the day before the 9th Circuit struck down Idaho’s ban. The city’s ordinance explicitly states that religious corporations are exempt from the law.

The lawsuit came as a surprise to city officials, who described conversations with the Knapps up until last week as “cordial.”

“We have never threatened them. We have never sent them a letter warning them. There was no ‘we’re going to throw you in jail’ kind of stuff. So we were mildly surprised, well, totally surprised by the lawsuit,” City Attorney Mike Gridley told The Huffington Post.

Moreover, while the lawsuit claims that the Knapps have already turned away multiple same-sex couples, Gridley said that the city had received no complaints about the Hitching Post and had no idea who these couples might be.

How did the Knapps come up with that jaw-dropping figure of 180 years? According to the lawsuit, the city ordinance sets forth fines up to $1,000 and jail time up to 180 days for every day of a violation. The Knapps' complaint reasons that they "risk going to jail for 180 years and being fined $365,000" if they refuse to marry one couple for one year.

Is that a real possibility? Gridley laughed. “That's not correct. Again,” he said.

“I want to make clear," said Gridley, "that the Hitching Post, or any other minister that I’m aware of, is not subject to our ordinance."

Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings

Seems like religion and insanity go hand in hand in this case.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You mean the unconstitutional forcing of homofascism upon the people by activist judges.
Logic conveniently escapes homo bigots like yourself.

You should probably look up how the U.S. Government works. Here's a site that can help someone at your level:

Government for Kids Grades K - 5 Kids.gov

No, you need to understand that no one has the right to coerce. Homofascism is coercion at it's most essential.
You should not be allowed to vote.

I shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Man you should really click on that link I gave you

You lack the reason and discernment to vote responsibly. IOW, you're a lefty. You shouldn't be allowed to vote. Like a criminal.

Wow....speaking of fascism.....

I correct my earlier post- yes there are people recommending fascism here on the boards....you fascists really want to deny the vote to those you don't think are politically correct.....wow.

My voting comments were initially intended as sarcasm but the more I think about it I suppose they should be considered literally.
Why would those of you, lefties and obama supporters, etc., who support usurping and circumventing the constitution, be upset about be denied the opportunity to vote?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

After the slew of massive defeats dealt to homophobes by the constitution and society, I'm happy you guys get a couple little consolation prizes. You've been through a lot so enjoy!

Well actually you haven't been through anything because your lives haven't been in any way affected... but still enjoy!

You mean the unconstitutional forcing of homofascism upon the people by activist judges.
Logic conveniently escapes homo bigots like yourself.

You do realize that this case centers around two business people who are suing the City- hoping to have an 'activist' judge- overturn a law?

Are these people 'heterofascists' for suing the City?

Sounds more like they are fighting to have the constitution upheld.

 

[bodecea]

After the slew of massive defeats dealt to homophobes by the constitution and society, I'm happy you guys get a couple little consolation prizes. You've been through a lot so enjoy!

Well actually you haven't been through anything because your lives haven't been in any way affected... but still enjoy!

You mean the unconstitutional forcing of homofascism upon the people by activist judges.
Logic conveniently escapes homo bigots like yourself.

You do realize that this case centers around two business people who are suing the City- hoping to have an 'activist' judge- overturn a law?

Are these people 'heterofascists' for suing the City?

Sounds more like they are fighting to have the constitution upheld.

So...its ok when your side does it, but not ok when gays do it.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

After the slew of massive defeats dealt to homophobes by the constitution and society, I'm happy you guys get a couple little consolation prizes. You've been through a lot so enjoy!

Well actually you haven't been through anything because your lives haven't been in any way affected... but still enjoy!

You mean the unconstitutional forcing of homofascism upon the people by activist judges.
Logic conveniently escapes homo bigots like yourself.

How has 'homofascism' been forced upon you?

Now it could be argued that 'heterofascism' has been forced upon homosexuals......but I like to use the word 'fascism' correctly- and that doesn't apply anywhere in this thread.

Subsidizing irrelevant homo marriage and granting equal opportunity for adoption privileges.
That is coercion, it's homofascism.

Okay- frankly that is just an nonsensical statement.

This thread is about people in Idaho suing the City to oppose a law they believe infringes on their rights.
But you are complaining about homosexuals suing States to oppose a law that they believe infringes on their rights- you call that fascism.

I don't even know what the hell you are talking about 'adoption privaleges'- how is 'equal opportunity' for adoption- homofascism?

I mean why not just be honest and say that you want all homosexuals rounded up, put in concentration camps....

Adoption privileges for homos deny a child the opportunity to be raised by a mother and a father as was intended by nature. Kids need a mom and a dad. That is based upon newer, up to date empirical data. Not your old 1960's neocon crap.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

After the slew of massive defeats dealt to homophobes by the constitution and society, I'm happy you guys get a couple little consolation prizes. You've been through a lot so enjoy!

Well actually you haven't been through anything because your lives haven't been in any way affected... but still enjoy!

You mean the unconstitutional forcing of homofascism upon the people by activist judges.
Logic conveniently escapes homo bigots like yourself.

You do realize that this case centers around two business people who are suing the City- hoping to have an 'activist' judge- overturn a law?

Are these people 'heterofascists' for suing the City?

Sounds more like they are fighting to have the constitution upheld.

So...its ok when your side does it, but not ok when gays do it.

My side is the constitution and liberty and personal freedom and personal responsibility. I'm against it anytime that is usurped. Legal homo marriage is counter to those constitutional concerns.

 

[Syriusly]

After the slew of massive defeats dealt to homophobes by the constitution and society, I'm happy you guys get a couple little consolation prizes. You've been through a lot so enjoy!

Well actually you haven't been through anything because your lives haven't been in any way affected... but still enjoy!

You mean the unconstitutional forcing of homofascism upon the people by activist judges.
Logic conveniently escapes homo bigots like yourself.

You do realize that this case centers around two business people who are suing the City- hoping to have an 'activist' judge- overturn a law?

Are these people 'heterofascists' for suing the City?

Sounds more like they are fighting to have the constitution upheld.

So...its ok when your side does it, but not ok when gays do it.

My side is the constitution and liberty and personal freedom and personal responsibility. I'm against it anytime that is usurped. Legal homo marriage is counter to those constitutional concerns.

You are for the courts when they are used against homosexuals.
You are against the courts when they are used by homosexuals.

You show nothing but contempt for the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

After the slew of massive defeats dealt to homophobes by the constitution and society, I'm happy you guys get a couple little consolation prizes. You've been through a lot so enjoy!

Well actually you haven't been through anything because your lives haven't been in any way affected... but still enjoy!

You mean the unconstitutional forcing of homofascism upon the people by activist judges.
Logic conveniently escapes homo bigots like yourself.

How has 'homofascism' been forced upon you?

Now it could be argued that 'heterofascism' has been forced upon homosexuals......but I like to use the word 'fascism' correctly- and that doesn't apply anywhere in this thread.

Subsidizing irrelevant homo marriage and granting equal opportunity for adoption privileges.
That is coercion, it's homofascism.

Okay- frankly that is just an nonsensical statement.

This thread is about people in Idaho suing the City to oppose a law they believe infringes on their rights.
But you are complaining about homosexuals suing States to oppose a law that they believe infringes on their rights- you call that fascism.

I don't even know what the hell you are talking about 'adoption privaleges'- how is 'equal opportunity' for adoption- homofascism?

I mean why not just be honest and say that you want all homosexuals rounded up, put in concentration camps....

Adoption privileges for homos deny a child the opportunity to be raised by a mother and a father as was intended by nature. Kids need a mom and a dad. That is based upon newer, up to date empirical data. Not your old 1960's neocon crap.

Kids need parents.

Kid's looking for adoption are overwhelmingly there because they were abandoned by their parents- that mom and dad they would have liked to depend upon.
The Top Reasons Children Enter the Foster Care System

Facts and Statistics

In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

Children raised in orphanages have an IQ 20 points lower than their peers in foster care, according to a meta-analysis of 75 studies (more than 3,800 children in 19 countries).

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits to be adopted


101,666 children a year are available for adoption. They wait an average of 3 years to be adopted- and 23,000 a year age out of the system- never adopted.

Where are the 'mom and dad' that you think those children are entitled to? You know- the children abandoned by mom and dad.

Far from 'depriving' children of a mom and a dad- gay parents give them parents- two moms or two dads- where before they hand none.

Why would you prefer kids to have no parents- than gay parents?

Why do you prefer children to wait 3 years for adoption- rather than have gay parents?

Why do you prefer children to age out of the system, and go homeless- rather than have gay parents?

Is it because you hate children?

Or is it because you have homosexuals?

 

[Syriusly]

After the slew of massive defeats dealt to homophobes by the constitution and society, I'm happy you guys get a couple little consolation prizes. You've been through a lot so enjoy!

Well actually you haven't been through anything because your lives haven't been in any way affected... but still enjoy!

You mean the unconstitutional forcing of homofascism upon the people by activist judges.
Logic conveniently escapes homo bigots like yourself.

You do realize that this case centers around two business people who are suing the City- hoping to have an 'activist' judge- overturn a law?

Are these people 'heterofascists' for suing the City?

Sounds more like they are fighting to have the constitution upheld.

Ah so when heterosexuals fight to have the constitution upheld- they are fighting for the constitution.....but when homosexuals fight to have the constitution upheld....they are homofascists...

How very fascist of you.

 

[Syriusly]

You should probably look up how the U.S. Government works. Here's a site that can help someone at your level:

Government for Kids Grades K - 5 Kids.gov

No, you need to understand that no one has the right to coerce. Homofascism is coercion at it's most essential.
You should not be allowed to vote.

I shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Man you should really click on that link I gave you

You lack the reason and discernment to vote responsibly. IOW, you're a lefty. You shouldn't be allowed to vote. Like a criminal.

Wow....speaking of fascism.....

I correct my earlier post- yes there are people recommending fascism here on the boards....you fascists really want to deny the vote to those you don't think are politically correct.....wow.

My voting comments were initially intended as sarcasm but the more I think about it I suppose they should be considered literally.
Why would those of you, lefties and obama supporters, etc., who support usurping and circumventing the constitution, be upset about be denied the opportunity to vote?

Of all of us posting here- you are the only one who has proposed circumventing the constitution and denying anyone the right to vote.

Its all on your- advocate for fascism.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You mean the unconstitutional forcing of homofascism upon the people by activist judges.
Logic conveniently escapes homo bigots like yourself.

You do realize that this case centers around two business people who are suing the City- hoping to have an 'activist' judge- overturn a law?

Are these people 'heterofascists' for suing the City?

Sounds more like they are fighting to have the constitution upheld.

So...its ok when your side does it, but not ok when gays do it.

My side is the constitution and liberty and personal freedom and personal responsibility. I'm against it anytime that is usurped. Legal homo marriage is counter to those constitutional concerns.

You are for the courts when they are used against homosexuals.
You are against the courts when they are used by homosexuals.

You show nothing but contempt for the Constitution.

What was used against homos? Can they procreate? No. Apples and oranges.