Are Boycotting Entities Outside North Carolina Etc. Practicing Sedition of Sovereign Democracy?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They're practicing mass stupidity. The circus cancels shows in S.C. and has a show booked in Dubai.

Men can't puss in a women's restroom, in S.C. Gays are executed in Dubai.

Makes sense, huh?

This fails as another false comparison fallacy, and is just as ignorant and ridiculous.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

They're practicing mass stupidity. The circus cancels shows in S.C. and has a show booked in Dubai.

Men can't puss in a women's restroom, in S.C. Gays are executed in Dubai.

Makes sense, huh?

This fails as another false comparison fallacy, and is just as ignorant and ridiculous.

That's your favorite response...lol!

 

[hadit]

Let's see if we get this straight. It's wonderful that companies have the freedom to refuse to do business with a group of people who hold a different political viewpoint, but it's terrible that companies have the freedom to refuse to do business with a group of people who hold a different political viewpoint?

The difference is, the Kleins of Oregon aren't forcing the gays who wanted them to make a wedding cake to convert to Christianity, "or else we're intending on using some flaw in your lives to defame you and utterly destroy you with the singular purpose of forcing you to your knees to cleave to our demands.".

See the difference? I know you do..

And it becomes a horse of a completely different color when that duress is intended to usurp lawful democracy rule in a sovereign STATE instead of random citizens here and there. We're taking about actions aimed at, tailored for and designed to withdraw the power of millions of voters by using blackmail against their preferred and elected leaders and the types of institutions those voters knew they stood for when they cast their votes.

BIG difference there muchacho..

It seems hypocritical for companies to exercise their freedom to refuse to do business with a state because that state refuses to force companies to do business with people with whom they disagree.

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy, and is fundamentally ignorant.

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

Public accommodations laws are regulatory measures no different than minimum wage laws, laws protecting the health and safety of employees, and those safeguarding the well-being of consumers, and just as Constitutional.

Consequently, there’s no ‘hypocrisy.’

There is the same hypocrisy as that practiced by the "tolerant" who will tolerate "intolerance".

 

[Silhouette]

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

Public accommodations laws are regulatory measures no different than minimum wage laws, laws protecting the health and safety of employees, and those safeguarding the well-being of consumers, and just as Constitutional.

Consequently, there’s no ‘hypocrisy.’

Which sexual orientations? All of them? The entire gamut? Or just some of your favorites? (In your answer, cite the 14th Amendment). Remember, the majority of people think homosexuality is repugnant.

When granting new protections to some behaviors the majority finds objectionable, how would you draw the line in future challenges where the case is "Minority Repugnant Behaviors vs The Majority"?

Go.

 

[Silhouette]

...and... is it proper to use economic sanctions, blackmail or slander campaigns of elected officials to force a state's majority rule to buckle to a minority agenda outside its borders? Or is that sedition?

 

[Syriusly]

...and... is it proper to use economic sanctions, blackmail or slander campaigns of elected officials to force a state's majority rule to buckle to a minority agenda outside its borders? Or is that sedition?

Blackmail is a crime- if you have evidence of such a crime being committed- please report it to the authorities.
If someone is being slandered, well then they can certainly sue for slander.
Sedition of course is a crime- and you don't have a clue what it means.

 

[mdk]

Sedition and sovereign democracy are going to be Sil's new Ferber and Prince's Trust. lol

 

[mdk]

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

Public accommodations laws are regulatory measures no different than minimum wage laws, laws protecting the health and safety of employees, and those safeguarding the well-being of consumers, and just as Constitutional.

Consequently, there’s no ‘hypocrisy.’

Which sexual orientations? All of them? The entire gamut? Or just some of your favorites? (In your answer, cite the 14th Amendment). Remember, the majority of people think homosexuality is repugnant.

When granting new protections to some behaviors the majority finds objectionable, how would you draw the line in future challenges where the case is "Minority Repugnant Behaviors vs The Majority"?

Go.

I have no doubt that the majority of the voices in head find homosexuality repugnant.

 

[Skylar]

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

Public accommodations laws are regulatory measures no different than minimum wage laws, laws protecting the health and safety of employees, and those safeguarding the well-being of consumers, and just as Constitutional.

Consequently, there’s no ‘hypocrisy.’

Which sexual orientations? All of them? The entire gamut? Or just some of your favorites? (In your answer, cite the 14th Amendment). Remember, the majority of people think homosexuality is repugnant.

Says who? You think homosexuality is repugnant. You then project your personal opinion onto the majority of people. But when the people are asked themselves, they overwhelmingly disagree with you.

Take our discussion of gay marriage as an example. You oppose it. And consequently you insist that 90% of people oppose it. Yet when asked, 60% support same sex marriage. Your assumptions and the reality have nothing to do with each other.

When granting new protections to some behaviors the majority finds objectionable, how would you draw the line in future challenges where the case is "Minority Repugnant Behaviors vs The Majority"?

Go.

Can I take it from your stark abandonment of your pseudo-legal 'sedition' babble....that even you recognize you didn't know what you were talking about?

If so, welcome to the party!

 

[Skylar]

Sedition and sovereign democracy are going to be Sil's new Ferber and Prince's Trust. lol

I'm still giggling at her 'implied party' nonsense. Even she admits she can't find a single law or court case backing her pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Syriusly]

Sedition and sovereign democracy are going to be Sil's new Ferber and Prince's Trust. lol

I'm still giggling at her 'implied party' nonsense. Even she admits she can't find a single law or court case backing her pseudo-legal gibberish.

Remember- it isn't the absence of a mother or father that harms a child- what harms the child is if they have no hope of every having a mother or a father.....because apparently kids don't need parents- only the hope that someday they might have a parent.

 

[Arianrhod]

Money has no sexual orientation, and corporations want your money, no matter the sexual orientation..

You have no purpose other than to disrupt meaningful conversations with shtick . You are the uber troll.

Are you claiming money has a sexual orientation or did you just not understand his post?

 

[Skylar]

Sedition and sovereign democracy are going to be Sil's new Ferber and Prince's Trust. lol

I'm still giggling at her 'implied party' nonsense. Even she admits she can't find a single law or court case backing her pseudo-legal gibberish.

Remember- it isn't the absence of a mother or father that harms a child- what harms the child is if they have no hope of every having a mother or a father.....because apparently kids don't need parents- only the hope that someday they might have a parent.

Because hope was the basis of marriage 'thousands of years ago'. Right?

 

[Syriusly]

Sedition and sovereign democracy are going to be Sil's new Ferber and Prince's Trust. lol

I'm still giggling at her 'implied party' nonsense. Even she admits she can't find a single law or court case backing her pseudo-legal gibberish.

Remember- it isn't the absence of a mother or father that harms a child- what harms the child is if they have no hope of every having a mother or a father.....because apparently kids don't need parents- only the hope that someday they might have a parent.

Because hope was the basis of marriage 'thousands of years ago'. Right?

I think they hoped that their own father wouldn't sell them to somebody else.....

 

[Skylar]

Sedition and sovereign democracy are going to be Sil's new Ferber and Prince's Trust. lol

I'm still giggling at her 'implied party' nonsense. Even she admits she can't find a single law or court case backing her pseudo-legal gibberish.

Remember- it isn't the absence of a mother or father that harms a child- what harms the child is if they have no hope of every having a mother or a father.....because apparently kids don't need parents- only the hope that someday they might have a parent.

Because hope was the basis of marriage 'thousands of years ago'. Right?

I think they hoped that their own father wouldn't sell them to somebody else.....

You mean its *not* every 13 year old girl's dream to be married off to a 40 year old man?

 

[Picaro]

These attention whoring celebrities aren't taking any big losses by boycotting NC, since they will just play venues in neighboring states just short drives away from NC anyway; it's a tiny state.

Do you think of any of them boycotted playing a big venue like Houston when they struck down that psycho lesbian Mayor's attempt at forcing on that city, and then thought she could steamroller the local churches and pastors by handing out subpoenas a year or two ago? Anybody have a guess? ...

the cognitive dissonance of these neo-fascist hypocrites is just hilarious; they have no problem ruining little old ladies for denying them service, but they're all over denying an entire state their services?

They're just insane, that's all.

 

[IsaacNewton]

...and... is it proper to use economic sanctions, blackmail or slander campaigns of elected officials to force a state's majority rule to buckle to a minority agenda outside its borders? Or is that sedition?

No that is perfectly legit. The people own the government, not the other way around. If a state mandates everyone has to wear purple on Fridays then it's up to everyone who lives there or visits to wear anything but purple.

 

[Silhouette]

These attention whoring celebrities aren't taking any big losses by boycotting NC, since they will just play venues in neighboring states just short drives away from NC anyway; it's a tiny state.

Do you think of any of them boycotted playing a big venue like Houston when they struck down that psycho lesbian Mayor's attempt at forcing on that city, and then thought she could steamroller the local churches and pastors by handing out subpoenas a year or two ago? Anybody have a guess? ...

the cognitive dissonance of these neo-fascist hypocrites is just hilarious; they have no problem ruining little old ladies for denying them service, but they're all over denying an entire state their services?

They're just insane, that's all.

What's more compelling is that businesses are threatening economic sanctions against sovereign states if those states defy an ideal the business has been duped into advocating for. Threatening to hurt a state (or elected official of a sovereign state) if it doesn't bow to your demands 100% is sedition. It is a minority holding a majority hostage until it abdicates its own self-rule over to the minority demand.

I think you're going to hear more about this in the coming year or so..

 

[Silhouette]

...and... is it proper to use economic sanctions, blackmail or slander campaigns of elected officials to force a state's majority rule to buckle to a minority agenda outside its borders? Or is that sedition?

No that is perfectly legit. The people own the government, not the other way around. If a state mandates everyone has to wear purple on Fridays then it's up to everyone who lives there or visits to wear anything but purple.

Hey idiot, the people of NC voted FOR their elected officials who passed the law knowing full well their stance on the LGBT cult values. So what you just said is a strawman. If the people of NC voted in elected officials who stood for during their campaigns "everyone wearing purple on Fridays", then a minority holding that state hostage until it gave up the purple-Friday thing would be sedition.

 

[Skylar]

These attention whoring celebrities aren't taking any big losses by boycotting NC, since they will just play venues in neighboring states just short drives away from NC anyway; it's a tiny state.

Do you think of any of them boycotted playing a big venue like Houston when they struck down that psycho lesbian Mayor's attempt at forcing on that city, and then thought she could steamroller the local churches and pastors by handing out subpoenas a year or two ago? Anybody have a guess? ...

the cognitive dissonance of these neo-fascist hypocrites is just hilarious; they have no problem ruining little old ladies for denying them service, but they're all over denying an entire state their services?

They're just insane, that's all.

What's more compelling is that businesses are threatening economic sanctions against sovereign states if those states defy an ideal the business has been duped into advocating for. Threatening to hurt a state (or elected official of a sovereign state) if it doesn't bow to your demands 100% is sedition.

Not by any definition of sedition recognized by the law, the dictionary, or rational people.

Remember.....you have no idea what you're talking about. And your only legal source is yourself. So you're kinda screwed.

It is a minority holding a majority hostage until it abdicates its own self-rule over to the minority demand.

I think you're going to hear more about this in the coming year or so..

Nope. Its just your latest pseudo-legal obsession that in a year even you won't remember.