Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Silhouette]

I still say no law can compel you to condone or support a group in any way who has a proud endemic and advertised habit of supporting/doing deviant sex acts in public where they invite kids to watch & even March along with them.

There are so many things wrong with that statement I don't even know where to begin so I won't.

Sounds like a dodge to me.

What I hear you saying is instead is "There are so many things traceable by search engines supporting your statement that I'm pretending to not even know how to address your observations so that I hope you stop alerting other people to them; all in hopes that they won't bother to use their search engines to find out what you're saying is true"

 

[Aba Incieni]

Since some simply remain bent upon bouncing off the walls and non sequituring all over the place,... Richard Dawson says:
Survey says: "Americans Like Gays But Hate When Gays Act Gay" - a real like/hate relationship if there ever was one, lol
Richard Dawkins says: "homosexuality does not conflict with the evolutionary principle. In a talk at Kennesaw State University, he said that "[Evolution] is the explanation for why we exist. It is not something to guide our lives in our own society. […] What we need is a truly anti-Darwinian society--anti-Darwinian in the sense that we do not wish to live in a society where…the strongest suppress the weak…I want to live in a society where we take care of the sick, take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed."
Richard Darwin is known for his work on Star Trek: Beyond (2016), X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) and Lost in Space (1998), but otherwise had no comment.

First of all, evolution is not an explanation of why we exist. It is a theory on how we came to exist. There is no why to it.

The part about caring for others could have paraphrased any one of the Gospels.

If you flipped the numbers. Make 95% of the population Gay, and 5% Straight, and all following generations are split 95% gay and 5% straight, you see that within a short period of time that there would be no population left for evolution to even have an effect on.

Cut the crap. Not only does Science find these arguments absurd, simple math does as well.

Without heteros there would be no homos.

#HeteroPride.

Without normal people there would be no genetic defected people. Gay is just another genetic abnormality.

There is no gay gene. But there is a gay Gene.

 

[Grumblenuts]

There is no gay gene. But there is a gay Gene.

There are gay Genes and straight jeans.
Gay Jeanes and straight Queens
But where no gay genes? No straight ones either.

 

[Pop23]

There is no gay gene. But there is a gay Gene.

There are gay Genes and straight jeans.
Gay Jeanes and straight Queens
But where no gay genes? No straight ones either.

Straight genes are why you and every other human being that lives, has ever lived and will ever live, exists.

No other proof needed

 

[Grumblenuts]

There is no gay gene. But there is a gay Gene.

There are gay Genes and straight jeans.
Gay Jeanes and straight Queens
But where no gay genes? No straight ones either.

Straight genes are why you and every other human being that lives, has ever lived and will ever live, exists.

No other proof needed

Gee, it's like I set a trap knowing you'd fall right in.
Well done, Genius. Well done indeed!

 

[Flopper]

I still say no law can compel you to condone or support a group in any way who has a proud endemic and advertised habit of supporting/doing deviant sex acts in public where they invite kids to watch & even March along with them.

There are so many things wrong with that statement I don't even know where to begin so I won't.

Sounds like a dodge to me.

What I hear you saying is instead is "There are so many things traceable by search engines supporting your statement that I'm pretending to not even know how to address your observations so that I hope you stop alerting other people to them; all in hopes that they won't bother to use their search engines to find out what you're saying is true"

I have no idea what you're trying to say and don't see how it relates to the topic. Let's get back on topic.

 

[Pop23]

There is no gay gene. But there is a gay Gene.

There are gay Genes and straight jeans.
Gay Jeanes and straight Queens
But where no gay genes? No straight ones either.

Straight genes are why you and every other human being that lives, has ever lived and will ever live, exists.

No other proof needed

Gee, it's like I set a trap knowing you'd fall right in.
Well done, Genius. Well done indeed!

You didn’t know what I posted. And now you scramble to deflect from that.

That’s funny

 

[Aba Incieni]

There is no gay gene. But there is a gay Gene.

There are gay Genes and straight jeans.
Gay Jeanes and straight Queens
But where no gay genes? No straight ones either.

Because it's a choice which ones you like.

 

[Silhouette]

I still say no law can compel you to condone or support a group in any way who has a proud endemic and advertised habit of supporting/doing deviant sex acts in public where they invite kids to watch & even March along with them.

There are so many things wrong with that statement I don't even know where to begin so I won't.

Sounds like a dodge to me.

What I hear you saying is instead is "There are so many things traceable by search engines supporting your statement that I'm pretending to not even know how to address your observations so that I hope you stop alerting other people to them; all in hopes that they won't bother to use their search engines to find out what you're saying is true"

I have no idea what you're trying to say and don't see how it relates to the topic. Let's get back on topic.

1. Gay pride parades have been going on as endemic to the LGBT culture every year across the US since about the 1960s. Yes? Correct. Move to >

2. Gay pride parades feature many nude or almost nude adults doing mock acts of sex in at least a couple of their floats and subgroups. Yes? Correct. Move to >

3. Gay pride parades invite families to attend with the expectation that children will be watching. Lately they've been featuring children marching with them. Yes? Correct. Move to >

4. No LGBT person that I know of has ever spoken out against the content of the gay pride parades, certainly no majority speaking out against them. Not even a tiny fraction. Yes? Correct. Move to >

5. The LGBT culture is supportive of and embraces "with pride" (no less) the acts of doing deviant sex acts in public in front of children. Yes? Correct. Move to >

6. Therefore, condoning or supporting or participating in the LGBT culture is the same as condoning or supporting or participating in the embracing of doing deviant sex acts in public in front of kids. Yes? Correct. Move to >

7. No person in the US can be compelled by law or any other means to condone, support or participate in the LGBT culture. <(THAT IS THE TOPIC)

End.

 

[dblack]

I still say no law can compel you to condone or support a group in any way who has a proud endemic and advertised habit of supporting/doing deviant sex acts in public where they invite kids to watch & even March along with them.

There are so many things wrong with that statement I don't even know where to begin so I won't.

Sounds like a dodge to me.

What I hear you saying is instead is "There are so many things traceable by search engines supporting your statement that I'm pretending to not even know how to address your observations so that I hope you stop alerting other people to them; all in hopes that they won't bother to use their search engines to find out what you're saying is true"

I have no idea what you're trying to say and don't see how it relates to the topic. Let's get back on topic.

1. Gay pride parades have been going on as endemic to the LGBT culture every year across the US since about the 1960s. Yes? Correct. Move to >

2. Gay pride parades feature many nude or almost nude adults doing mock acts of sex in at least a couple of their floats and subgroups. Yes? Correct. Move to >

3. Gay pride parades invite families to attend with the expectation that children will be watching. Lately they've been featuring children marching with them. Yes? Correct. Move to >

4. No LGBT person that I know of has ever spoken out against the content of the gay pride parades, certainly no majority speaking out against them. Not even a tiny fraction. Yes? Correct. Move to >

5. The LGBT culture is supportive of and embraces "with pride" (no less) the acts of doing deviant sex acts in public in front of children. Yes? Correct. Move to >

6. Therefore, condoning or supporting or participating in the LGBT culture is the same as condoning or supporting or participating in the embracing of doing deviant sex acts in public in front of kids. Yes? Correct. Move to >

7. No person in the US can be compelled by law or any other means to condone, support or participate in the LGBT culture. <(THAT IS THE TOPIC)

End.

I'm beginning to think the topic is repressed homosexuality.

 

[Flopper]

I still say no law can compel you to condone or support a group in any way who has a proud endemic and advertised habit of supporting/doing deviant sex acts in public where they invite kids to watch & even March along with them.

There are so many things wrong with that statement I don't even know where to begin so I won't.

Sounds like a dodge to me.

What I hear you saying is instead is "There are so many things traceable by search engines supporting your statement that I'm pretending to not even know how to address your observations so that I hope you stop alerting other people to them; all in hopes that they won't bother to use their search engines to find out what you're saying is true"

I have no idea what you're trying to say and don't see how it relates to the topic. Let's get back on topic.

1. Gay pride parades have been going on as endemic to the LGBT culture every year across the US since about the 1960s. Yes? Correct. Move to >

2. Gay pride parades feature many nude or almost nude adults doing mock acts of sex in at least a couple of their floats and subgroups. Yes? Correct. Move to >

3. Gay pride parades invite families to attend with the expectation that children will be watching. Lately they've been featuring children marching with them. Yes? Correct. Move to >

4. No LGBT person that I know of has ever spoken out against the content of the gay pride parades, certainly no majority speaking out against them. Not even a tiny fraction. Yes? Correct. Move to >

5. The LGBT culture is supportive of and embraces "with pride" (no less) the acts of doing deviant sex acts in public in front of children. Yes? Correct. Move to >

6. Therefore, condoning or supporting or participating in the LGBT culture is the same as condoning or supporting or participating in the embracing of doing deviant sex acts in public in front of kids. Yes? Correct. Move to >

7. No person in the US can be compelled by law or any other means to condone, support or participate in the LGBT culture. <(THAT IS THE TOPIC)

End.

1. Yes, I agree that gay pride parade are important to LGBTs. They are an important expression of the individuals right to free express as to who they are, something that society has suppressed for centuries.

2. I have never seen a gay pride parade with total nudity, occasional partial nudity. There are certainly sexual statements made in gay pride parades because the entire LGBT movement is about sex but certainly tame compared to what's on cable tonight. Yet, I have never seen any sexual activity that my 4th grade grandson is not aware of.

3. Absolutely for families that support gay rights; they are encourage to march. There is nothing really shocking in the parades for families where children learn about homosexuality in school and parents teach their children that people should be respected regardless of their sexual preference. However, the parades are not for families that teach their kids that sex is taboo, not to be spoken of in mixed company, and any divination from perceived norms are to be hidden in shame.

4. I don't know of any gays or lesbians that speak out against gay rights parades. In fact, I don't know anybody that does, but then most of the people I know are pretty open minded and judge people as individuals, not based on stereotypes and labels.

5. That has not been my experience.

6. Absolutely no. Gay and lesbians I know do not participate in any form of public sex acts. They are very private people.

7. I agree that no one should be compelled to go to a gay rights parade, attend a same sex wedding, watch gay and lesbian movies, or association with gays and lesbians.

I'm still waiting for you to describe the LBGT culture and lifestyle which you seem to have no knowledge of

BTW gay rights pride parades are now on national television. I suggest you watch and learn. Maybe then you will be able to intelligently discuss the subject.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Still chewin' on this, WW...

No problem, not all disagreements with Public Accommodation laws are based on hatred and bigotry.

Then there are those that agree with government overreach as long as it doesn't apply to the gays.

I think mine is a more reasoned opinion and strives for equal treatment under the law for all business owners not special rights to discriminate for those that would use religion as a shield from generally applicable laws. There is something fundamentally wrong (opinion) about a law that functions the way some want it to function. Religious shop owners should be able to discriminate against gays, but gay shop owners can discriminate a religious person for their beliefs. That is unequal treatment under the law.

.>>>>

Thanks again, but no thanks. I'd much rather keep obvious discrimination illegal.

Now, finally, regarding the balance of post #1454

Okay, I think the first bit (everything before the "**************************" roughly qualifies as arguing, like John Stossel, you feel "the market" will soon put all those who discriminate out of business or a satisfactory amount of them anyway. A best we can hope for given the circumstances kind of thing. I'm not so hopeful. Perhaps more practical or "conservative" than you here.

"So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business."

Yeah, never heard of those particular "rights" myself. Can't see "the desires of others to have access" being an actual thing either. A mischaracterization at best of the issues at stake.

"With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I find my position aligned with what were called Goldwater Conservatives quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government."

Again, these vague "rights" you ascribe to property owners appear to be figments of your or some other's imagination. Wishful thinking. While the Constitution mentions many rights associated with property ownership it ascribes nothing like what you're talking about. And Goldwater, while certainly miles ahead of jerks like George Wallace, was none the less a bigot and horse's ass, much like the vast majority of whites back then, only more so.

Goldwater and Civil Rights

"But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that's the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area."

Listen to yourself: "A burger joint" saying "I won't serve a black" is somehow "dealing with" its "own issues"? Whose "price of liberty"? No skin off the "burger joint's" back. Oh, the blacks can just use their iphones, search "Angie's List" for "non-racist burger joint" and count on a quick hit being just a "walk across the street". Good thing blacks always have those iphones instead of cars, else they might be late returning to work from their half hour lunch break due to all those pesky traffic lights, huh!

"Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government and who the government can do business with, but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other private individuals"

"Citizens" vs "other private individuals"? I believe the term you're searching for is "people."

Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sure "citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government" but the obligation to treat all equally doesn't end there. Government should be of, for, and by the people.

The first question you may ask is “who ARE the people”? The founding fathers had a very different idea of who should run the government than we do today. They felt that only a very few were really qualified to govern. Blacks, women, Native Americans were definitely not ‘of the people”. Neither were those who didn’t own property or were not considered ‘intelligent enough’. In the days of the Gettysburg address, those seen “of the people” loosened a bit, and over time the 13th amendment (race), 19th amendment (women) and 26th amendment (over 18) allowed more and more people the right to vote and the right to be ‘of the people”. Today, we may say that everyone of voting age is ‘of the people’, but still the debates come in.

The context of that bolded bit reveals property ownership to be as much a civil right's issue as any of those mentioned. Indeed, pun intended, it's obviously been our core stumbling block all along. "Survival of the fittest" has always been an argument emanating from the fittest. Ownership and/or control over real estate has been mankind's biggest impediment to actual freedom, liberty, and equality since we opted to cease hunter gathering and become "civilized" farmers. Obviously those with the most, biggest, and highest quality instantly became the most equal, the most powerful, and began doing everything they could to retain that position for themselves and their posterity. Little has changed to this day.

Long lost and growing ever more distant is any notion of stewardship. Any obligation to preserve and protect the land in general so that all life may continue to thrive or at least subsist. It's high time we all woke up and took a good whiff of the oppression guaranteed only to worsen in inverse proportion to our common shrinking ownership and control over our land, air, water, space. We increasingly cede our collective future to a relative few scoundrels and dickheads like the Waltons, Kochs, Buffets, Gates... allowing them to OWN us, RULE us, use OUR government against us,.. just for their personal kicks and giggles. It ain't funny in the least. Never has been.

 

[danielpalos]

I still say no law can compel you to condone or support a group in any way who has a proud endemic and advertised habit of supporting/doing deviant sex acts in public where they invite kids to watch & even March along with them.

i try to not take practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, seriously.

 

[danielpalos]

Doesn't mean he still wasn't in violation of the law. The law clearly says "full and equal" access to goods and services, not that some goods and services can be denied.


.>>>>

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. You are still arguing as if the USSC didn't just indicate that it considers "LGBT" as a lifestyle and not innate. And, nobody can be compelled to support or promote a lifestyle that for one thing, adheres itself in unanimity around "pride" in public graphic acts of deviant sex in front of kids it hopes will be watching.

Instead of arguing civil code, you should be arguing penal code. Abetting such a group is against the law in all 50 states.

based on what? the ruling was not that broad.

 

[danielpalos]

Still chewin' on this, WW...

No problem, not all disagreements with Public Accommodation laws are based on hatred and bigotry.

Then there are those that agree with government overreach as long as it doesn't apply to the gays.

I think mine is a more reasoned opinion and strives for equal treatment under the law for all business owners not special rights to discriminate for those that would use religion as a shield from generally applicable laws. There is something fundamentally wrong (opinion) about a law that functions the way some want it to function. Religious shop owners should be able to discriminate against gays, but gay shop owners can discriminate a religious person for their beliefs. That is unequal treatment under the law.


.>>>>

True Persons of Morals, operate on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre, basis.

 

[danielpalos]

I think mine is a more reasoned opinion and strives for equal treatment under the law for all business owners not special rights to discriminate for those that would use religion as a shield from generally applicable laws.


.>>>>

What do you think about a group that uses its "newly-favored/protected" lifestyle as a shield against being arrested in public for doing lewd deviant sex acts on a float down main street where the group hopes for and invites children to be watching? Do the generally-applicable laws of sex crimes involving children apply? Or do they get a special pass? (The lack of arrests already tells us the answer to that question).

For instance, try those same acts in front of a schoolyard at recess on any other day and see how long that shield will protect you.

Article 4, Section 2, always applied: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Silhouette]

I still say no law can compel you to condone or support a group in any way who has a proud endemic and advertised habit of supporting/doing deviant sex acts in public where they invite kids to watch & even March along with them.

i try to not take practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, seriously.

But you DO take seriously and support practitioners of deviant sex acts in public where kids are invited to watch and march along. And that's the problem.

Article 4, Section 2, always applied: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Since LGBT just got demoted to behavioral with this USSC Ruling (because we all know the Opinion would've been significantly different if the baker refused the cake because the customers were black), there's a problem with your Article 4, Section 2.

Since LGBT is a repugnant minority behavioral group that somehow (God knows how: Scalia called it "voodoo") "got" special protection from majority rule, what about the rest of them? I mean ANY behavioral group that is repugnant to the majority that self-describes as compulsive ahd habitual? Many are less repugnant than LGBT who takes "pride" in public sex acts where they invite children to watch. For instance, why are polygamists left out in the cold? Does Article 4, Section 2 say "just some get these protections but not others"?

Surely you can see the rats nest the USSC is staring at and why Scalia called Obergefell "voodoo"?

 

[danielpalos]

I still say no law can compel you to condone or support a group in any way who has a proud endemic and advertised habit of supporting/doing deviant sex acts in public where they invite kids to watch & even March along with them.

i try to not take practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy, seriously.

But you DO take seriously and support practitioners of deviant sex acts in public where kids are invited to watch and march along. And that's the problem.

Article 4, Section 2, always applied: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Since LGBT just got demoted to behavioral with this USSC Ruling (because we all know the Opinion would've been significantly different if the baker refused the cake because the customers were black), there's a problem with your Article 4, Section 2.

Since LGBT is a repugnant minority behavioral group that somehow (God knows how: Scalia called it "voodoo") "got" special protection from majority rule, what about the rest of them? I mean ANY behavioral group that is repugnant to the majority that self-describes as compulsive ahd habitual? Many are less repugnant than LGBT who takes "pride" in public sex acts where they invite children to watch. For instance, why are polygamists left out in the cold? Does Article 4, Section 2 say "just some get these protections but not others"?

Surely you can see the rats nest the USSC is staring at and why Scalia called Obergefell "voodoo"?

only sex is deviant to the right wing?

we need to go over a Bible, better.

 

[Silhouette]

only sex is deviant to the right wing?

No, sex crimes against kids on public streets is not a situation that can be rendered via a political filter. The laws against child sex crimes apply to all US citizens regardless of any type of affiliation. Including rainbow flags or armbands.