Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It doesn't. But it doesn't say states cannot decide to repress homosexuality either. It doesn't mention homosexuality at all...because the idea of homosexuality being anything but a criminal offense to nature and it's laws never crossed their mind. They were sane, they were thinkers.... The founders would be turning over in their graves if they saw what this country has become.Huh?So where in the constudoes it say repression of homosexuality is the law of the land?I'm not revisioning anything, I am giving you an originalist perspective. Originalist means I respect what the document originally intended.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?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.
So where in the constitution does it say repression of homosexuality is the law of the land?
They'd probably like that though.Ceci simply thinks she can piss over homosexuals.
Sure there are, the right of being an American citizen. There are no particular rights for sovereign citizens at all.In a legal case with profound implications for LGBT rights...
There are no such thing as LGBT rights. Rights don't come as groups. Rights come as Individuals.
You are stupid, guy.Sure there are, the right of being an American citizen. There are no particular rights for sovereign citizens at all.In a legal case with profound implications for LGBT rights...
There are no such thing as LGBT rights. Rights don't come as groups. Rights come as Individuals.
Sure there are, the right of being an American citizen. There are no particular rights for sovereign citizens at all
You can call me anything you like, but if you could come closer to reality, it might bolster your argument a little more.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.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.You honestly can't see the irony in that statement, can you?Freedom of religion will trump faggotry. Watch.
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.
You're talking to a 100% collectivist bug person, bro. He won't get it.Sure there are, the right of being an American citizen. There are no particular rights for sovereign citizens at all
Rights don't come as groups. Rights come as Individuals.
Though, Individuals, gay or straight, should be free to voluntarily associate. The Individual right to freedom of association is fundamental to the principles of Individual liberty. And one of Individual liberty's primary means of support.
I'm afraid that is EXACTLY governments businessIt'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.
If you can't treat all customers equally, you do not belong in business
The only good business is between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
Actually, it is the Declaration of Independence that says all men are created equalYou can call me anything you like, but if you could come closer to reality, it might bolster your argument a little more.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.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.You honestly can't see the irony in that statement, can you?Freedom of religion will trump faggotry. Watch.
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.
The Bill of Rights, which the states insisted on before they would ratify the Constitution, STATES that all men are created equal.
Think about it. It doesn't say that some men deserve to have their lifestyle denigrated and discriminated against, or that only some men are equal. It doesn't mention homosexuality ANYWHERE. All men are equal before the law.
So treat them equally and uphold the laws for all; even if you believe that the other guy is sinning, before the law he is equal and will be treated as such.
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.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.You honestly can't see the irony in that statement, can you?Freedom of religion will trump faggotry. Watch.
I'm afraid that is EXACTLY governments businessIt'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.
If you can't treat all customers equally, you do not belong in business
The only good business is between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
We don't serve negroes here was abandoned 50 years ago
Then please explain the virtue of criminalizing homosexuality. Why is that a good idea? Who benefits?It doesn't. But it doesn't say states cannot decide to repress homosexuality either. It doesn't mention homosexuality at all...because the idea of homosexuality being anything but a criminal offense to nature and it's laws never crossed their mind. They were sane, they were thinkers.... The founders would be turning over in their graves if they saw what this country has become.Huh?So where in the constudoes it say repression of homosexuality is the law of the land?I'm not revisioning anything, I am giving you an originalist perspective. Originalist means I respect what the document originally intended.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?
So where in the constitution does it say repression of homosexuality is the law of the land?
You can call me anything you like, but if you could come closer to reality, it might bolster your argument a little more.
The Bill of Rights, which the states insisted on before they would ratify the Constitution, STATES that all men are created equal.
Think about it. It doesn't say that some men deserve to have their lifestyle denigrated and discriminated against, or that only some men are equal. It doesn't mention homosexuality ANYWHERE. All men are equal before the law.
So treat them equally and uphold the laws for all; even if you believe that the other guy is sinning, before the law he is equal and will be treated as such.
I am woefully ignorant. Thanks.Actually, it is the Declaration of Independence that says all men are created equalYou can call me anything you like, but if you could come closer to reality, it might bolster your argument a little more.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.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.You honestly can't see the irony in that statement, can you?
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.
The Bill of Rights, which the states insisted on before they would ratify the Constitution, STATES that all men are created equal.
Think about it. It doesn't say that some men deserve to have their lifestyle denigrated and discriminated against, or that only some men are equal. It doesn't mention homosexuality ANYWHERE. All men are equal before the law.
So treat them equally and uphold the laws for all; even if you believe that the other guy is sinning, before the law he is equal and will be treated as such.
The Constitution didn't affirm it until the 14 th amendment
That must be where OOM is getting his "originalist" argument.You can call me anything you like, but if you could come closer to reality, it might bolster your argument a little more.
The Bill of Rights, which the states insisted on before they would ratify the Constitution, STATES that all men are created equal.
Think about it. It doesn't say that some men deserve to have their lifestyle denigrated and discriminated against, or that only some men are equal. It doesn't mention homosexuality ANYWHERE. All men are equal before the law.
So treat them equally and uphold the laws for all; even if you believe that the other guy is sinning, before the law he is equal and will be treated as such.
Technically, equal by God's gift in sight of God and Law. I won't bother you about it in detail because I know you mean well.
That must be where OOM is getting his "originalist" argument.
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.
I've always put forth the following scenario to illustrate this: What if a gay graphic designer open to the public was forced to print a billboard for a busy highway that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"?Opponents in LGBT case agree: It's not about wedding cake
In a legal case with profound implications for LGBT rights and religion's place in public life, the opposing sides agree on this: It's not about the cake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
And everyone with a brain left know this is how it should be. It isn't about the cake it is about being " FORCED" ........this is America not N. Korea.
Hey, "public accommodation", right? A person's belief system (LGBT cult included) can't interfere with business....right?
SCOTUS decided 50 years ago
Then please explain the virtue of criminalizing homosexuality. Why is that a good idea? Who benefits?
Judging another as immoral and indecent is not "live and let live." Never mind; the concept apparently is way over your head.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.
Any rational version of “live and let live” would necessarily have to include refraining from forcing anyone to participate in or give support to that which he finds to be immoral. To abuse the force of law to compel a baker who holds to basic standards of morality and decency, to provide a cake for n immoral, indecent homosexual mockery of a wedding, would not be reconcilable with “live and let live”.
