Amazing, Six Members of the Clown Car did WHAT?

[peach174]

Yup...a lot of people wanting special little "I hate gays" carve outs...but nobody doing anything to repeal Title II of the CRA. That's VERY telling.

Why on Earth would anybody want to repeal Title II of the CRA?

What you call I hate gays carve outs is another persons right to practice their religion of the1st amendment.

 

[g5000]

Here is the House bill for the First Amendment Defense Act: H.R.2802 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): First Amendment Defense Act

Sponsored by Raul Labrador (R-ID-1). He's a Mormon, by the way.

152 co-sponsors. 151 of them have an R after their name.

No, really. 152 out of 153 names are Republicans.

How many of those co-sponsors do you think have been divorced and remarried, in direct violation of Matthew 19:9?

Hmmmm...

 

[g5000]

Here is the Senate version of the bill: Cosponsors - S.1598 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): First Amendment Defense Act

Senator Rubio is one of the co-sponsors.

As is Ted Cruz.

So is David Vitter, who was nice enough to take some time away from his hookers to sign his name to it. Because marriage is a union between one man and one woman, and his concubines.

Now watch The Rabbi say my link is from a biased source....

 

[peach174]

Here is the House bill for the First Amendment Defense Act: H.R.2802 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): First Amendment Defense Act

Sponsored by Raul Labrador (R-ID-1). He's a Mormon, by the way.

152 co-sponsors. 151 of them have an R after their name.

No, really. 152 out of 153 names are Republicans.

How many of those co-sponsors do you think have been divorced and remarried, in direct violation of Matthew 19:9?

Hmmmm...

How many of them got divorced because of their spouse's cheating?
Which is not a violation of Matthew 19:9

 

[g5000]

Here is the House bill for the First Amendment Defense Act: H.R.2802 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): First Amendment Defense Act

Sponsored by Raul Labrador (R-ID-1). He's a Mormon, by the way.

152 co-sponsors. 151 of them have an R after their name.

No, really. 152 out of 153 names are Republicans.

How many of those co-sponsors do you think have been divorced and remarried, in direct violation of Matthew 19:9?

Hmmmm...

How many of them got divorced because of their spouse's cheating?
Which is not a violation of Matthew 19:9

Is that question on your marriage certificate application? Didn't think so.

You have to notify the county clerk if you have been divorced, and then you have to show the divorce papers to prove you are not committing bigamy. But there is no adultery test, and there is no ban on adulterers remarrying. Show me THAT bill!

David Vitter is a sponsor of this bill. That screams hypocrisy.

So if we want to defend religion, we better start asking for proof you aren't an adulterer before you are allowed to marry again.

By the way, looking at porn is adultery.

 

[g5000]

These assholes sure are going to have some priceless looks on their faces when they show up in hell, having been judged by the same measure they judged others.

 

[Seawytch]

Yup...a lot of people wanting special little "I hate gays" carve outs...but nobody doing anything to repeal Title II of the CRA. That's VERY telling.

Why on Earth would anybody want to repeal Title II of the CRA?

What you call I hate gays carve outs is another persons right to practice their religion of the1st amendment.

Because it relates to Public Accommodation laws, of course. Title II of the CRA says you can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Some LOCAL (see states rights) laws also protect gays.

Why would you only go after laws that protect gays?

 

[peach174]

Yup...a lot of people wanting special little "I hate gays" carve outs...but nobody doing anything to repeal Title II of the CRA. That's VERY telling.

Why on Earth would anybody want to repeal Title II of the CRA?

What you call I hate gays carve outs is another persons right to practice their religion of the1st amendment.

Because it relates to Public Accommodation laws, of course. Title II of the CRA says you can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Some LOCAL (see states rights) laws also protect gays.

Why would you only go after laws that protect gays?

Why can't you see that when some of the laws that protect gays, also takes away the rights of religious and moral beliefs of others?
There is a balance there where both can have their rights.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yup...a lot of people wanting special little "I hate gays" carve outs...but nobody doing anything to repeal Title II of the CRA. That's VERY telling.

Why on Earth would anybody want to repeal Title II of the CRA?

What you call I hate gays carve outs is another persons right to practice their religion of the1st amendment.

Because it relates to Public Accommodation laws, of course. Title II of the CRA says you can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Some LOCAL (see states rights) laws also protect gays.

Why would you only go after laws that protect gays?

Why can't you see that when some of the laws that protect gays, also takes away the rights of religious and moral beliefs of others?
There is a balance there where both can have their rights.

Bullshit. Being gay / Lesbian is not a choice, selecting a religion is most definitely.

 

[peach174]

Yup...a lot of people wanting special little "I hate gays" carve outs...but nobody doing anything to repeal Title II of the CRA. That's VERY telling.

Why on Earth would anybody want to repeal Title II of the CRA?

What you call I hate gays carve outs is another persons right to practice their religion of the1st amendment.

Because it relates to Public Accommodation laws, of course. Title II of the CRA says you can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Some LOCAL (see states rights) laws also protect gays.

Why would you only go after laws that protect gays?

Why can't you see that when some of the laws that protect gays, also takes away the rights of religious and moral beliefs of others?
There is a balance there where both can have their rights.

Bullshit. Being gay / Lesbian is not a choice, selecting a religion is most definitely.

So?
Choice or no choice each have rights.
Both have their rights and we should have a balance that accomodates both.

 

[peach174]

Really?
What is so sane about leading from behind?
or
What is so sane about having the right not to be offended?
Both sides have their insane moments.

 

[rightwinger]

Yup...a lot of people wanting special little "I hate gays" carve outs...but nobody doing anything to repeal Title II of the CRA. That's VERY telling.

Why on Earth would anybody want to repeal Title II of the CRA?

What you call I hate gays carve outs is another persons right to practice their religion of the1st amendment.

Because it relates to Public Accommodation laws, of course. Title II of the CRA says you can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Some LOCAL (see states rights) laws also protect gays.

Why would you only go after laws that protect gays?

Why can't you see that when some of the laws that protect gays, also takes away the rights of religious and moral beliefs of others?
There is a balance there where both can have their rights.

The religious right fought tooth and nail to deny rights to gays

Now they whimper about the loss of their right to discriminate

 

[peach174]

Yup...a lot of people wanting special little "I hate gays" carve outs...but nobody doing anything to repeal Title II of the CRA. That's VERY telling.

Why on Earth would anybody want to repeal Title II of the CRA?

What you call I hate gays carve outs is another persons right to practice their religion of the1st amendment.

Because it relates to Public Accommodation laws, of course. Title II of the CRA says you can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Some LOCAL (see states rights) laws also protect gays.

Why would you only go after laws that protect gays?

Why can't you see that when some of the laws that protect gays, also takes away the rights of religious and moral beliefs of others?
There is a balance there where both can have their rights.

The religious right fought tooth and nail to deny rights to gays

Now they whimper about the loss of their right to discriminate

No that was the lying spin on it.
They wanted them to have their rights, but just done in a different way than the way the Dem's did it.
Dem's way took away the rights of religious business owners or religious government employees.
Changing the laws that discriminated against gays did not. For example new tax laws for gays living together as a couple (or inheritance laws) and many of the other ones that did discriminate.

 

[rightwinger]

Yup...a lot of people wanting special little "I hate gays" carve outs...but nobody doing anything to repeal Title II of the CRA. That's VERY telling.

Why on Earth would anybody want to repeal Title II of the CRA?

What you call I hate gays carve outs is another persons right to practice their religion of the1st amendment.

Because it relates to Public Accommodation laws, of course. Title II of the CRA says you can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Some LOCAL (see states rights) laws also protect gays.

Why would you only go after laws that protect gays?

Why can't you see that when some of the laws that protect gays, also takes away the rights of religious and moral beliefs of others?
There is a balance there where both can have their rights.

The religious right fought tooth and nail to deny rights to gays

Now they whimper about the loss of their right to discriminate

No that was the lying spin on it.
They wanted them to have their rights, but just done in a different way than the way the Dem's did it.
Dem's way took away the rights of religious business owners or religious government employees.
Changing the laws that discriminated against gays did not. For example new tax laws for gays living together as a couple (or inheritance laws) and many of the other ones that did discriminate.

Now you are outright lying
The religious right never wanted gays to have rights. Once gays got rights, they whined that they now had to respect them

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I miss Jimmy Piersall and Billy Martin too...............stupendous, awesome, mysterious, unfathomable like a "Tennessee Tuxedo" cartoon on a bleary Sunday morning after..........

 

[Seawytch]

Yup...a lot of people wanting special little "I hate gays" carve outs...but nobody doing anything to repeal Title II of the CRA. That's VERY telling.

Why on Earth would anybody want to repeal Title II of the CRA?

What you call I hate gays carve outs is another persons right to practice their religion of the1st amendment.

Because it relates to Public Accommodation laws, of course. Title II of the CRA says you can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Some LOCAL (see states rights) laws also protect gays.

Why would you only go after laws that protect gays?

Why can't you see that when some of the laws that protect gays, also takes away the rights of religious and moral beliefs of others?
There is a balance there where both can have their rights.

The same right is being "taken away" when someone is required, by law, to serve someone who is black, christian, from Hungaria, whatever. What makes gay haters so special?

Having a business is not a right...so what "right" is being taken away by Public Accommodation laws?

 

[FA_Q2]

Here is the House bill for the First Amendment Defense Act: H.R.2802 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): First Amendment Defense Act

Sponsored by Raul Labrador (R-ID-1). He's a Mormon, by the way.

152 co-sponsors. 151 of them have an R after their name.

No, really. 152 out of 153 names are Republicans.

How many of those co-sponsors do you think have been divorced and remarried, in direct violation of Matthew 19:9?

Hmmmm...

How many of them got divorced because of their spouse's cheating?
Which is not a violation of Matthew 19:9

Is that question on your marriage certificate application? Didn't think so.

You have to notify the county clerk if you have been divorced, and then you have to show the divorce papers to prove you are not committing bigamy. But there is no adultery test, and there is no ban on adulterers remarrying. Show me THAT bill!

David Vitter is a sponsor of this bill. That screams hypocrisy.

So if we want to defend religion, we better start asking for proof you aren't an adulterer before you are allowed to marry again.

By the way, looking at porn is adultery.

Why? this has nothing to do with defending ones rights. Weather or not they are religious has nothing to do with passing laws that state OTHER religious people have the right to live by their convictions.

 

[peach174]

Here is the House bill for the First Amendment Defense Act: H.R.2802 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): First Amendment Defense Act

Sponsored by Raul Labrador (R-ID-1). He's a Mormon, by the way.

152 co-sponsors. 151 of them have an R after their name.

No, really. 152 out of 153 names are Republicans.

How many of those co-sponsors do you think have been divorced and remarried, in direct violation of Matthew 19:9?

Hmmmm...

How many of them got divorced because of their spouse's cheating?
Which is not a violation of Matthew 19:9

Is that question on your marriage certificate application? Didn't think so.

You have to notify the county clerk if you have been divorced, and then you have to show the divorce papers to prove you are not committing bigamy. But there is no adultery test, and there is no ban on adulterers remarrying. Show me THAT bill!

David Vitter is a sponsor of this bill. That screams hypocrisy.

So if we want to defend religion, we better start asking for proof you aren't an adulterer before you are allowed to marry again.

By the way, looking at porn is adultery.

That was a question that I asked of you in response to your question of the co-sponsors.

 

[Seawytch]

Here is the House bill for the First Amendment Defense Act: H.R.2802 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): First Amendment Defense Act

Sponsored by Raul Labrador (R-ID-1). He's a Mormon, by the way.

152 co-sponsors. 151 of them have an R after their name.

No, really. 152 out of 153 names are Republicans.

How many of those co-sponsors do you think have been divorced and remarried, in direct violation of Matthew 19:9?

Hmmmm...

How many of them got divorced because of their spouse's cheating?
Which is not a violation of Matthew 19:9

Is that question on your marriage certificate application? Didn't think so.

You have to notify the county clerk if you have been divorced, and then you have to show the divorce papers to prove you are not committing bigamy. But there is no adultery test, and there is no ban on adulterers remarrying. Show me THAT bill!

David Vitter is a sponsor of this bill. That screams hypocrisy.

So if we want to defend religion, we better start asking for proof you aren't an adulterer before you are allowed to marry again.

By the way, looking at porn is adultery.

That was a question that I asked of you in response to your question of the co-sponsors.

David Vitter is a co sponsor of the bill. Diaper wearing, whore fucker David Vitter.

And let's see here...Representative Pete Sessions divorced his wife of 27 years and remarried about a year latter. Wow,that was fast! Oh, but I'm sure they divorced because she cheated on him.