Senator Marco Rubio: It's Constitutionally Valid To Refuse Services To Gay Marriages (He's Right)

Just think, Jewish delicatessens are not obligated to serve ham sandwiches. Halal restaurants are not obligated to serve pork chops. Is that unconstitutional?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think newspapers have the right to refuse any ad that they please.

I have to agree that Marco Rubio, a non-natural born Citizen constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of the presidency, who will announce his candidacy on April 11th, is right on this issue.

Rubio Constitutionally Valid For People to Refuse Service to Gay Marriages - Breitbart

Ugh. This stupid fucking argument again.

A Jewish Deli doesn't sell ham sandwiches to anyone. So failing to serve them isn't discrimination. IF they refused to say, sell kosher pastrami to a Muslim, that would be discrimination. As they sell pastrami to everyone else.

No one is requiring a baker to sell children's clothes or auto parts. They are required to sell only what they normally make: cake. If you sell cake to a straight couple, you sell it to a gay couple.
And a stupid response again. This isn't about selling cakes to homos. It's about selling homo cakes. You argue like Charlie the Tuna.

There's no such thing as 'homo cake'. Cake doesn't have a sexual orientation, being inanimate.

One would think this was obvious. But clearly you need to be clued in.
A cake decorated for purpose of celebrating homos is a homo cake.
Selling cake to homos is very distinct from selling a homo cake.

Nope. There's no such thing as 'homo cake'. Cake doesn't have sexuality. Its just cake.
 
segregation2.jpg

no-mexicans1.jpg

no-latinos.jpg

http://independentcreativeservices....73975/the-unknown-history-of-latino-lynchings

Rubio isn't a nitwit because he's Hispanic, he's a nitwit because he's Republican.
pie-face-gif.gif
 
Just think, Jewish delicatessens are not obligated to serve ham sandwiches. Halal restaurants are not obligated to serve pork chops. Is that unconstitutional?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think newspapers have the right to refuse any ad that they please.

I have to agree that Marco Rubio, a non-natural born Citizen constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of the presidency, who will announce his candidacy on April 11th, is right on this issue.

Rubio Constitutionally Valid For People to Refuse Service to Gay Marriages - Breitbart

Ugh. This stupid fucking argument again.

A Jewish Deli doesn't sell ham sandwiches to anyone. So failing to serve them isn't discrimination. IF they refused to say, sell kosher pastrami to a Muslim, that would be discrimination. As they sell pastrami to everyone else.

No one is requiring a baker to sell children's clothes or auto parts. They are required to sell only what they normally make: cake. If you sell cake to a straight couple, you sell it to a gay couple.
And a stupid response again. This isn't about selling cakes to homos. It's about selling homo cakes. You argue like Charlie the Tuna.

There's no such thing as 'homo cake'. Cake doesn't have a sexual orientation, being inanimate.

One would think this was obvious. But clearly you need to be clued in.
A cake decorated for purpose of celebrating homos is a homo cake.
Selling cake to homos is very distinct from selling a homo cake.

Nope. There's no such thing as 'homo cake'. Cake doesn't have sexuality. Its just cake.
But pie does.
 
ROSHAWNMARKWEES SAID:

"But until you act on it it's only an impulse. People don't go to jail for pedophilia unless they act on it.
As for gender and race, which is the incongruent analogy homo activists like to use and which is what started this train of the thread, those are not behaviors and impulses which require conscious decisions to act upon. Apples and oranges."

Wrong.

It's telling how you continue to attempt to propagate this lie, when why this is a lie has been explained to you and others on the right dozens of times.

Constitutional protections do not apply only to gender and race, they apply also to choice, the right to make decisions in the context of the right to individual liberty, free from unwarranted interference from the state.

Gay Americans are not 'comparing' the discrimination they encounter to discrimination based on gender or race, which is again a lie; the discrimination gay Americans encounter is based upon an ignorant, hateful perception that being gay is 'wrong' or 'immoral,' where to seek to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are is in fact un-Constitutional. (Romer v. Evans)

Indeed, your posts reflect that unwarranted, ugly hate toward gay Americans, with offensive, ignorant references to 'homo activists,' as it's the right of every American to fight for his comprehensive civil rights. As a fact of Constitutional law gay Americans exist as a protected class of persons entitled to the right of due process and equal protection of the laws.
 
Just think, Jewish delicatessens are not obligated to serve ham sandwiches. Halal restaurants are not obligated to serve pork chops. Is that unconstitutional?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think newspapers have the right to refuse any ad that they please.

I have to agree that Marco Rubio, a non-natural born Citizen constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of the presidency, who will announce his candidacy on April 11th, is right on this issue.

Rubio Constitutionally Valid For People to Refuse Service to Gay Marriages - Breitbart

Ugh. This stupid fucking argument again.

A Jewish Deli doesn't sell ham sandwiches to anyone. So failing to serve them isn't discrimination. IF they refused to say, sell kosher pastrami to a Muslim, that would be discrimination. As they sell pastrami to everyone else.

No one is requiring a baker to sell children's clothes or auto parts. They are required to sell only what they normally make: cake. If you sell cake to a straight couple, you sell it to a gay couple.
And a stupid response again. This isn't about selling cakes to homos. It's about selling homo cakes. You argue like Charlie the Tuna.

There's no such thing as 'homo cake'. Cake doesn't have a sexual orientation, being inanimate.

One would think this was obvious. But clearly you need to be clued in.
A cake decorated for purpose of celebrating homos is a homo cake.
Selling cake to homos is very distinct from selling a homo cake.

Nope. There's no such thing as 'homo cake'. Cake doesn't have sexuality. Its just cake.
I forgot it was you. Five-year-old contrarian lefty.
 
Ugh. This stupid fucking argument again.

A Jewish Deli doesn't sell ham sandwiches to anyone. So failing to serve them isn't discrimination. IF they refused to say, sell kosher pastrami to a Muslim, that would be discrimination. As they sell pastrami to everyone else.

No one is requiring a baker to sell children's clothes or auto parts. They are required to sell only what they normally make: cake. If you sell cake to a straight couple, you sell it to a gay couple.
And a stupid response again. This isn't about selling cakes to homos. It's about selling homo cakes. You argue like Charlie the Tuna.

There's no such thing as 'homo cake'. Cake doesn't have a sexual orientation, being inanimate.

One would think this was obvious. But clearly you need to be clued in.
A cake decorated for purpose of celebrating homos is a homo cake.
Selling cake to homos is very distinct from selling a homo cake.

Nope. There's no such thing as 'homo cake'. Cake doesn't have sexuality. Its just cake.
I forgot it was you. Five-year-old contrarian lefty.

More accurately, I'm just someone that recognizes that inanimate objects don't have a sexual orientation.

Which apparently puts me heads and shoulders above you.
 
ROSHAWNMARKWEES SAID:

"But until you act on it it's only an impulse. People don't go to jail for pedophilia unless they act on it.
As for gender and race, which is the incongruent analogy homo activists like to use and which is what started this train of the thread, those are not behaviors and impulses which require conscious decisions to act upon. Apples and oranges."

Wrong.

It's telling how you continue to attempt to propagate this lie, when why this is a lie has been explained to you and others on the right dozens of times.

Constitutional protections do not apply only to gender and race, they apply also to choice, the right to make decisions in the context of the right to individual liberty, free from unwarranted interference from the state.

Gay Americans are not 'comparing' the discrimination they encounter to discrimination based on gender or race, which is again a lie; the discrimination gay Americans encounter is based upon an ignorant, hateful perception that being gay is 'wrong' or 'immoral,' where to seek to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are is in fact un-Constitutional. (Romer v. Evans)

Indeed, your posts reflect that unwarranted, ugly hate toward gay Americans, with offensive, ignorant references to 'homo activists,' as it's the right of every American to fight for his comprehensive civil rights. As a fact of Constitutional law gay Americans exist as a protected class of persons entitled to the right of due process and equal protection of the laws.
Right wingers feel their rights are unlimited.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top