Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays

[PaintMyHouse]

Actually every one of the people above named became successful, or rich, or famous by attacking liberal philosophies. They should at least thank us....

Well, Mr. Powell is an exception but for the most part those people became Public Figures by not being Liberal and fighting Liberalism. It's why she knows their names.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What has been done to them is clear, I'm not interested in a debate with two closed minds any more than one.

She's stuck, because it's dogma and untrue. We're closed-minded because we are asking her to prove what she believes but can't. Interesting.

What's not interesting is chasing liberals down rat holes.

Kiddo, you think way too much of yourself. You make statements and then can't back them up or admit that you are wrong about what you said. When pushed for answers, you say Liberals Suck and run away. I know it's hard to be honest but you should try. You won't learn much until you do.

 

[Silhouette]

No, it's not as simple as all that. "women and blacks" are states of being since birth. "gays" are part of a behavioral group, a cult movement of some, but not all, deviant sexual behaviors.

Tell me, how could I check to see whether someone was actually a "woman"? Genetics maybe? Is XX female, and XY male? What if I had on my hands a male but they looked like a woman? What are they really, male or female?

If you had your hands on a man that you were convinced was a woman, what they really would be is "mentally ill", and male of course. If that level of denial of reality of what a person was born with between their legs can lead to such a state of complete delusion and confusion that they would seek the assistance of medical "professionals" to amputate healthy organs and body parts then that soul in that body is so tweaked, so twisted, so disturbed that you should run a thousand miles per hour to the most distant point of the globe of that person.

That's why you see the parody in film on the classic "man discovers the woman he was with was actually a man" leading to the next inevitable scene: projectile vomiting. It's because we are hardwired to recognize perverse and severe mental illness when it slaps us upside the head with a brick like that.

My personal thesis on why we are hardwired in such a way is rabies. Bear with me. The main symptom of this completely 100% fatal zoonotic disease [crosses all warm blooded species] that has been with the animal kingdom for millions of years is an animal clearly acting mentally disturbed. A visceral revulsion for highly disturbing behavior quite likely evolved as hardwired as a survival tool. So actually, properly in this argument, if my thesis is correct, wise "homophobia" is actually the only thing "born that way", while gay behaviors are the result of faulty imprinting at highly suggestable age just on the verge of puberty. Animals acting patently bizarrely are always ostracized from the herd with good reason.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That they are famous and haven't committed suicide doesn't contradict my point that liberals are close minded and rigidly intolerant. So I don't see the point of your "questions." I also challenged you to what would be an easy task if you weren't wrong, to give examples of things that liberals are open to views about and disagree on, you can't.

The examples you gave me are people who has supposedly been hurt bu the vicious Liberals, and yet they all seem to be perfectly fine? If they've been hurt why can't you show that to us? What bad things were done to them?

And what do Liberals not agree on? War, abortion, debt, religion, foreign policy, global warming, politics, art, science, spanking children, prostitution, drugs, education, and bad TV. Pick a couple and we'll play with them.

And name two Democrats who actually publicly disagree on those. Would that be you and your uncle?

Like this you mean:

Democrats abandon Obama on Afghan war

"The House's vote yesterday on emergency funding for the Afghanistan war shows a significant eroding of support for President Obama's war policy -- from members of his own Democratic Party.

There were 102 Democrats voting against the $33 billion in war funding. That's more than three times the number of Democrats (32) who voted against a similar funding bill in June 2009. (This year's war funding bill passed, 308-114.)"
Democrats abandon Obama on Afghan war

It what you said is true, shouldn't they have all supported the highest Democrat in the land, the President? Did they not vote against him?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, it's not as simple as all that. "women and blacks" are states of being since birth. "gays" are part of a behavioral group, a cult movement of some, but not all, deviant sexual behaviors.

Tell me, how could I check to see whether someone was actually a "woman"? Genetics maybe? Is XX female, and XY male? What if I had on my hands a male but they looked like a woman? What are they really, male or female?

If you had your hands on a man that you were convinced was a woman, what they really would be is "mentally ill", and male of course.

How do I really tell if someone is male or female?

 

[Silhouette]

How do I really tell if someone is male or female?

You ask the easiest questions, I swear: DNA swab, usually around the inside of the cheek or a hair sample. [A hair sample would be the most discreet way to test if your "female" friend was actually male if "doctors" had already assisted him with amputation and plastic surgery]

The more important question to ask is "How do I really tell if someone is mentally ill?". Well the answer oddly is the same. If you are hetero and someone you're with you suspect might have a pelvis or fingers or adam's apple that is more proper to your same gender [males' pelvic bones reach higher up on the torso, their adam's apple protrudes more and their ring fingers are often longer than their index finger] a DNA swab or hair sample would tell you whether or not you are dealing with someone who is mentally ill.

 

[Iceweasel]

Explain the relevence. Laws aren't theology.

No, they're Moral. The laws against murder are Moral laws. We, society, proscribes morality, for people of all faiths in this case.

Wrong. They are secular laws that don't give a shit what your beliefs are. Same with communist countries. Killing someone deprives them of their right to live. If it's unjustified, it's murder. There are moral laws in regions if they don't conflict with Constitutional rights.

 

[kaz]

She's stuck, because it's dogma and untrue. We're closed-minded because we are asking her to prove what she believes but can't. Interesting.

What's not interesting is chasing liberals down rat holes.

Kiddo, you think way too much of yourself. You make statements and then can't back them up or admit that you are wrong about what you said. When pushed for answers, you say Liberals Suck and run away. I know it's hard to be honest but you should try. You won't learn much until you do.

That you don't know what I'm talking about with the list of people I gave you shows that you're the one not intellectually engaged in the discussion. You're like debating a holocaust denier, there is no point.

 

[kaz]

The examples you gave me are people who has supposedly been hurt bu the vicious Liberals, and yet they all seem to be perfectly fine? If they've been hurt why can't you show that to us? What bad things were done to them?

And what do Liberals not agree on? War, abortion, debt, religion, foreign policy, global warming, politics, art, science, spanking children, prostitution, drugs, education, and bad TV. Pick a couple and we'll play with them.

And name two Democrats who actually publicly disagree on those. Would that be you and your uncle?

Like this you mean:

Democrats abandon Obama on Afghan war

"The House's vote yesterday on emergency funding for the Afghanistan war shows a significant eroding of support for President Obama's war policy -- from members of his own Democratic Party.

There were 102 Democrats voting against the $33 billion in war funding. That's more than three times the number of Democrats (32) who voted against a similar funding bill in June 2009. (This year's war funding bill passed, 308-114.)"
Democrats abandon Obama on Afghan war

It what you said is true, shouldn't they have all supported the highest Democrat in the land, the President? Did they not vote against him?

See, your first, go to example isn't a different policy, it's a disagreement over the timeline. Already broken on your first serve...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What's not interesting is chasing liberals down rat holes.

Kiddo, you think way too much of yourself. You make statements and then can't back them up or admit that you are wrong about what you said. When pushed for answers, you say Liberals Suck and run away. I know it's hard to be honest but you should try. You won't learn much until you do.

That you don't know what I'm talking about with the list of people I gave you shows that you're the one not intellectually engaged in the discussion. You're like debating a holocaust denier, there is no point.

So, you can't back up what you said but I'm the one that's wrong? If I say blue teapots dance on the moon, shouldn't I have to prove that? Or do you want me to say what you do, it's obvious that blue teapots dance on the moon and you are just stupid because you won't accept what I say?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And name two Democrats who actually publicly disagree on those. Would that be you and your uncle?

Like this you mean:

Democrats abandon Obama on Afghan war

"The House's vote yesterday on emergency funding for the Afghanistan war shows a significant eroding of support for President Obama's war policy -- from members of his own Democratic Party.

There were 102 Democrats voting against the $33 billion in war funding. That's more than three times the number of Democrats (32) who voted against a similar funding bill in June 2009. (This year's war funding bill passed, 308-114.)"
Democrats abandon Obama on Afghan war

It what you said is true, shouldn't they have all supported the highest Democrat in the land, the President? Did they not vote against him?

See, your first, go to example isn't a different policy, it's a disagreement over the timeline. Already broken on your first serve...

Saying you won't fund a war is pretty strong disagreement in this country when our soldiers are dying. How about an example of where I know, not even believe, I know for a fact, that the President was dead wrong, even Unconstitutional? Do you remember the American Radical Muslim he killed without trial?

This guy: Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is absolutely, without question, illegal. It was wrong, immoral even, and I completely disagree with him and said so by email. Does that help any?

 

[kaz]

Kiddo, you think way too much of yourself. You make statements and then can't back them up or admit that you are wrong about what you said. When pushed for answers, you say Liberals Suck and run away. I know it's hard to be honest but you should try. You won't learn much until you do.

That you don't know what I'm talking about with the list of people I gave you shows that you're the one not intellectually engaged in the discussion. You're like debating a holocaust denier, there is no point.

So, you can't back up what you said but I'm the one that's wrong?

You look at what Democrats do to people like Sarah Palin and Clarance Thomas and don't know what I'm talking about? Yeah, you're the one that's wrong.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Explain the relevence. Laws aren't theology.

No, they're Moral. The laws against murder are Moral laws. We, society, proscribes morality, for people of all faiths in this case.

Wrong. They are secular laws that don't give a shit what your beliefs are. Same with communist countries. Killing someone deprives them of their right to live. If it's unjustified, it's murder. There are moral laws in regions if they don't conflict with Constitutional rights.

Secular and Moral are not the same thing. A law against Murder is a Moral law, a law that proscribes Morality. A law that says women must cover their hair is a Religious Law, not a moral one. You are mixing things up.

We are a Secular country but we pass Moral laws. Secular people have Morals, just not Religious ones. I believe in the Morality of not committing murder just as much as the average Christian but they might say their Morality comes from the Bible and I might use your reasoning and say it comes from that one has a right to live. Both of us are expressing Morality even though only one of us is religious.

Laws are very often about defining Morality, in this case, for all of society. Even if your religion says that Murder is allowed, in our society it isn't. We have a communal morality and we pass laws to make it so.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That you don't know what I'm talking about with the list of people I gave you shows that you're the one not intellectually engaged in the discussion. You're like debating a holocaust denier, there is no point.

So, you can't back up what you said but I'm the one that's wrong?

You look at what Democrats do to people like Sarah Palin and Clarance Thomas and don't know what I'm talking about? Yeah, you're the one that's wrong.

What do they do exactly? They say mean things? They beat them up? They keep them from getting good jobs? They put them in prison? What are all these bad things they do to them, to "destroy" them?

Can you back up your words or not? Why should I just take your word for it?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How do I really tell if someone is male or female?

You ask the easiest questions, I swear: DNA swab, usually around the inside of the cheek or a hair sample. [A hair sample would be the most discreet way to test if your "female" friend was actually male if "doctors" had already assisted him with amputation and plastic surgery]

The more important question to ask is "How do I really tell if someone is mentally ill?". Well the answer oddly is the same. If you are hetero and someone you're with you suspect might have a pelvis or fingers or adam's apple that is more proper to your same gender [males' pelvic bones reach higher up on the torso, their adam's apple protrudes more and their ring fingers are often longer than their index finger] a DNA swab or hair sample would tell you whether or not you are dealing with someone who is mentally ill.

Okay. Now if the test comes back XY, is that a male then?

 

[Iceweasel]

Secular and Moral are not the same thing.

That's what I just said.

A law against Murder is a Moral law, a law that proscribes Morality. A law that says women must cover their hair is a Religious Law, not a moral one. You are mixing things up.

How can I mix it up since I'm not the one that brought up women covering hair? People's morality differ. Some people see so problem with killing a child molester. The law against murder is secular and impartial to individuals' opinions, faiths, morals or beliefs.

We are a Secular country but we pass Moral laws. Secular people have Morals, just not Religious ones. I believe in the Morality of not committing murder just as much as the average Christian but they might say their Morality comes from the Bible and I might use your reasoning and say it comes from that one has a right to live. Both of us are expressing Morality even though only one of us is religious.

You're religious? I just made the boldened point. WTF is wrong with you?

Laws are very often about defining Morality, in this case, for all of society. Even if your religion says that Murder is allowed, in our society it isn't. We have a communal morality and we pass laws to make it so.

What religion do I have? Yours is obviously The Church of Perpetual Idiocy.

 

[Gadawg73]

As of today the Arizona Crusader Morality Lonely Hearts Club Tour is in Surprise, Arizona.
Still not one example of a business owner found in the entire state that has claimed their religious freedom has been violated.
No surprise.
Where is that business owner hiding? Gay folks have kidnapped all of them?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The part that stomped all over private property rights, yes.

You should tell that to your fellow conservatives - they get all puffy and proud (well, pre-this month) as they like to so often announce how if it wasn't for 'publicans, yanno, the Civil Rights Act never would have passed!!

It's a real point of pride for them. Well, it used to be.

Sometimes they would even throw in a "Did you know MLK was a republican! ."

Meh..in 40 years the Republicans will be trying to take credit for gay civil rights.

Considering that Republicans are the ones that won the DADT
case, the Prop 8 case, and a few other state level cases, they just might have a point.

On the other hand, Democrats are the ones that actually stood in the schoolhouse door to prevent segregation.

 

[Silhouette]

Okay. Now if the test comes back XY, is that a male then?

In a normal scenario, yes. More importantly, it is a male who hasn't adapted well to his maleness. ie, the extremes these males [and females] go to be in denial is frank and stark mental illness.

I sense you will go on a tangent, a wild goose chase of "exceptions to the rule". But what we are talking about is an ideology. It's the guy born fully male, all normal parts in the normal places and then pays a "psychiatrists" and "doctors" to legitimize and perform the amputation of his healthy organs to leave him an incontinent, sexually numbed and multilated victim of his own self-denial. The others who participated belong in prison.

I'm talking about this:

 

[Gadawg73]

The Founders were radicals of their time. The conservatives of the day were the Torries who believed in the safe colonial system where the King relied solely on the doctrine of divine right given to the monarchy by God.
Down here, in the south, support for a war with the British was insane and funds were extremely hard to raise in the south for the war effort in spite of the fact of the vast wealth of many southern plantation owners.
The Anglican church, the church of ENGLAND, was the predominant religion and church in the colonies. Many of the them supported the crown during the war and many did not as many churches were burned to the ground because of their defiance to the crown.
At that time EVERY European state was run by religion, same as the British as the Church of England influenced the monarchy that ruled the land with their divine right mandated by God.
The Founders ran from that shit like a monkey on fire, kicked the ass of the British, 100,000 American colonists that were strongly in support of the British left the country and the United States Constitution does not mention God in it anywhere.
For a reason. THE LAW.