Opponents in LGBT case agree: It's not about wedding cake

It's about a marketplace that treats all customers equally

That's not the government's business.
If you don't like how a business operates, don't go there.
I'm afraid that is EXACTLY governments business

If you can't treat all customers equally, you do not belong in business
Says who?
SCOTUS
Congress
SCOTUS has yet to hear this case, bro. Don't get ahead of yourself.
SCOTUS decided 50 years ago
 
That's not the government's business.
If you don't like how a business operates, don't go there.
I'm afraid that is EXACTLY governments business

If you can't treat all customers equally, you do not belong in business
Says who?
SCOTUS
Congress
SCOTUS has yet to hear this case, bro. Don't get ahead of yourself.
SCOTUS decided 50 years ago
50 years ago, sodomy was a criminal offense idiot.
 
Very true.
Gays are superior to you.
Farm Animals are superior to you.
Cockroaches are superior to you.

Saying gays are equal to you is an insult to gays.
Lmao! They're not worth a damn. Fags give nothing of value to society. ...
Only good fag is a dead fag.

No surprise you feel that way about Americans that are gay- just like ISIS

Gays are superior to you.
Farm Animals are superior to you.
Cockroaches are superior to you.

Saying gays are equal to you is an insult to gays
Fags are equal to a pile of shit in a bum's pants.

Fags are ruining America, they are anti-american trash that should be deported to Mexico along with illegals.
That's a bit harsh. Why such hysterics over something that has nothing to do with you personally? Live and let live is a time honored way to actually get through this life without have a stroke.
These filth mongers tried to teach my kids that faggotry is normal and they should experiment sexually...they made it personal. Get a clue. They do this across the country.
Did one of your kids become a faggot?
 
Freedom of religion will trump faggotry. Watch.
You honestly can't see the irony in that statement, can you?
There's no irony in it. Faggotry was punishable by death in many places here when the constitution was written. It was never meant to support or promote faggotry. I think it's hilarious that you don't understand that and follow a revisionist line.
 
Freedom of religion will trump faggotry. Watch.
You honestly can't see the irony in that statement, can you?
There's no irony in it. Faggotry was punishable by death in many places here when the constitution was written. It was never meant to support or promote faggotry. I think it's hilarious that you don't understand that and follow a revisionist line.
How much "revisionism" do you want? Roll back in other civil rights? Roll back worker's rights? And what is noble about criminalizing homosexuality? Why is it good? Who benefits? Who gets hurt? And to what end?
 
Freedom of religion will trump faggotry. Watch.
You honestly can't see the irony in that statement, can you?
There's no irony in it. Faggotry was punishable by death in many places here when the constitution was written. It was never meant to support or promote faggotry. I think it's hilarious that you don't understand that and follow a revisionist line.
The whole concept of freedom of religion is the concept of individual freedom to live and practice your beliefs unfettered. The irony is that that same concept applies to freedom from discrimination as a homosexual. Individual freedom is individual freedom. Honor it in one corner, honor it in all.
 
Freedom of religion will trump faggotry. Watch.
You honestly can't see the irony in that statement, can you?
There's no irony in it. Faggotry was punishable by death in many places here when the constitution was written. It was never meant to support or promote faggotry. I think it's hilarious that you don't understand that and follow a revisionist line.
How much "revisionism" do you want? Roll back in other civil rights? Roll back worker's rights? And what is noble about criminalizing homosexuality? Why is it good? Who benefits? Who gets hurt? And to what end?
I'm not revisioning anything, I am giving you an originalist perspective. Originalist means I respect what the document originally intended.
 
Freedom of religion will trump faggotry. Watch.
You honestly can't see the irony in that statement, can you?
There's no irony in it. Faggotry was punishable by death in many places here when the constitution was written. It was never meant to support or promote faggotry. I think it's hilarious that you don't understand that and follow a revisionist line.
How much "revisionism" do you want? Roll back in other civil rights? Roll back worker's rights? And what is noble about criminalizing homosexuality? Why is it good? Who benefits? Who gets hurt? And to what end?
I'm not revisioning anything, I am giving you an originalist perspective. Originalist means I respect what the document originally intended.
So where in the constudoes it say repression of homosexuality is the law of the land?
 
Freedom of religion will trump faggotry. Watch.
You honestly can't see the irony in that statement, can you?
There's no irony in it. Faggotry was punishable by death in many places here when the constitution was written. It was never meant to support or promote faggotry. I think it's hilarious that you don't understand that and follow a revisionist line.
The whole concept of freedom of religion is the concept of individual freedom to live and practice your beliefs unfettered. The irony is that that same concept applies to freedom from discrimination as a homosexual. Individual freedom is individual freedom. Honor it in one corner, honor it in all.

No, the irony is that you seem to think that "freedom from discrimination by individuals" is listed ANYWHERE in the Constitution, as freedom of religion is.

And if you want to talk about "honoring freedom" in one corner by demanding that people be forced to do things that suit you, you're not even ironic. You're hypocritical and fascistic.
 
Look people, I say a lot of controversial stuff, in an attempt to drive the conversation to it's logical conclusion... But I honestly would not care about fags getting "married" if they were not promoting the filth to kids. It shows that the radical faggot movent knows they are not born that way. If you wanted to simply teach tolerance, not to violently attack or treat homosexuals bad in public places...be humble, kind, etc... I can support that.

But the faggots won't stop being militant, so I have to be militant against their movement. The Fags are the aggressors on society...not those of us who oppose normalizing their behaviors. This country was not founded by homos.
 
Freedom of religion will trump faggotry. Watch.
You honestly can't see the irony in that statement, can you?
There's no irony in it. Faggotry was punishable by death in many places here when the constitution was written. It was never meant to support or promote faggotry. I think it's hilarious that you don't understand that and follow a revisionist line.
How much "revisionism" do you want? Roll back in other civil rights? Roll back worker's rights? And what is noble about criminalizing homosexuality? Why is it good? Who benefits? Who gets hurt? And to what end?
I'm not revisioning anything, I am giving you an originalist perspective. Originalist means I respect what the document originally intended.
So where in the constudoes it say repression of homosexuality is the law of the land?
Huh?
 
You honestly can't see the irony in that statement, can you?
There's no irony in it. Faggotry was punishable by death in many places here when the constitution was written. It was never meant to support or promote faggotry. I think it's hilarious that you don't understand that and follow a revisionist line.
How much "revisionism" do you want? Roll back in other civil rights? Roll back worker's rights? And what is noble about criminalizing homosexuality? Why is it good? Who benefits? Who gets hurt? And to what end?
I'm not revisioning anything, I am giving you an originalist perspective. Originalist means I respect what the document originally intended.
So where in the constudoes it say repression of homosexuality is the law of the land?
Huh?

So where in the constitution does it say repression of homosexuality is the law of the land?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top