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

[Seawytch]

What have you actively done in that regard?

Nobody that claims they are against "gubmint marriage" has done diddly (except maybe get legally married themselves).

That wasn't the question. What have you actively done to further gay marriage?

No, that wasn't Bod's question, that was yours.

I've donated to marriage equality groups, attended rallies and marches, donated to candidates with an equality agenda and...oh yeah, got married.

 

[kaz]

Nobody that claims they are against "gubmint marriage" has done diddly (except maybe get legally married themselves).

That wasn't the question. What have you actively done to further gay marriage?

No, that wasn't Bod's question, that was yours.

I've donated to marriage equality groups, attended rallies and marches, donated to candidates with an equality agenda and...oh yeah, got married.

Bodeca's question was what have I done to eliminate marriage, so I asked her what she's done to further gay marriage. No answer so far.

I don't even get the question, it's from the bull shit liberal bag of tricks. I think advocating better laws is doing something. Asking people why we need government marriage and making them think about that is one of the most effective things we can do. I don't see throwing money at the problem as being more effective. Liberals love asking that question, then seldom have answers as to what they do to further what they advocate even though they are the ones who are obsessed with asking people they disagree with what they are doing and telling them it's nothing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And to add to your comment, if a man does not have the common sense and intelligence not to put his stick in the mud, does that homosexual man have the common sense and intelligence not to tell Children he is a homosexual.

The answer was given to me when my daughter was 10, in school, when her Homosexual teacher told the whole class that he was breaking up with his "life partner".

What right do Homosexuals have to tell 10 year old children that are not theirs about Homosexuality?

Well, this is the beginning of a terrible story that I will end here.

anyone who does not have the intelligence to control their sexual proclivities has not the intelligence to be around children.

So if a straight teacher told their class they were getting married, having a baby, getting a divorce, etc...no biggie

but if one of "the gheys" does it...the world just ends for you?

How old are you?

How about this, tell the teachers, straight or gay or whatever, to keep their private lives out of the classroom completely.

 

[Mertex]

Where do you live that forces people to go to marriages? North Korea?

That comment should give you an idea of what you are dealing with..... earlier he told me that there was no difference between a hunter and a gay person....

"In QW's mind "all hunters are gay and all gays are hunters".. "

Do I intimidate you so much that your only way of dealing with me is lying?

I don't lie, didn't you say the following?

There is no difference between being gay and being a hunter.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8722175-post69.html

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What a load of shit - and really Dawg, if you are agreeing with Saul Goodman (Clayton,) you KNOW you're dead wrong on the issue, regardless of what that issue is.

I'm walking down a crowded street - quick, who are the queers? You can't tell, because homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, not a race. Unless a dude drops in the middle of the street and starts sucking some guys cock, there is nothing to identify homosexuals - it's a behavior.

The ONLY way someone can discriminate against homosexuals is based on what they do, not color of skin.

Saul wants to make behavior equivalent to race, but then the closest Saul gets to logic, is logical fallacy.

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.

I prefer my position.

They can say, or do, whatever the **** they want, as long as they don't force other people to participate in their lives. In return, I can say, or do, whatever the **** I want, as long as I don't force the gays to participate in my life.

And, no, them dancing naked in the street is not forcing me to participate in their lives anymore than me preaching on the same street is forcing them to participate in mine. In fact, they can dance naked while I preach if they want. I still won't force them to go to church.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OK, Folks claim homosexuality is a sin.
How many sins are there.
Aren't people supposed to forgive others for their sins?
Forgiveness in the Bible is a prominent theme. Forgiveness is obedience to God and his COMMAND to forgive.
So how can a Christian legitimately claim "religious freedom" when he does not go by God's command to forgive?
But of course this has nothing to do with Christianity or "religious freedom".
All about folks believing homosexuals are scum and beneath them.

I cannot forgive you if you sin against Seawytch, only she can do that.

I do thank you for proving how stupid you are though, it makes it so much easier to mock you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It appears the protectionist has applied Strict Scrutiny in the opposite direction from what it actually is...

From last months ruling --

Lately, it seems like every day brings another falling domino in the fight for marriage freedom. Today's victory comes from Virginia, where a federal judge declared the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The case, Bostic v. Rainey, looks a lot like every other marriage case -- loving and committed same-sex couples want nothing more than to have their love recognized by the state.

Judge Arenda Wright Allen, a former Judge Advocate General in the Navy and public defender and an Obama appointee to the federal bench, declared Virginia's ban unconstitutional, but took a different path than some other judges who have recently come to similar conclusions. The decision concludes that marriage is a fundamental right and, as such, any ban on fundamental rights has to be evaluated under strict scrutiny.

But Judge Wright Allen notes that she does not have to go the far: the ban fails very easily under equal protection, and under the lowest form of scrutiny. But, as you will see from our discussion below, this decision feeds off recent decisions elsewhere on marriage equality, proving that a victory in one case does indeed make it easier to win the next case.

Regular Towleroad readers should be familiar with this argument. It does not break any new ground and will probably stand up at the appellate level. And although the Fourth Circuit has for years been a deeply conservative court, President Obama's recent appointees have tipped the balance. Even if they had not, we have seen many Republican appointees honestly apply the law and find these bans unconstitutional.

States cannot restrict fundamental rights, which are rights so important to what it means to be an American, unless they provide a "compelling interest" and "narrowly tailor" their actions to result in the least restriction possible. That is strict scrutiny, and Virginia's arguments could not even come close.

Virginia's Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down: Analysis of the Ruling| Gay News | Towleroad

I love the Virginia ruling, it actually proves how stupid the judge is. I say this despite the fact that she got one thing right, freedom is choice, and any law that takes away choice takes away freedom.

A spirited and controversial debate is underway regarding who may enjoy the right marry in the United States of America. America has pursued a journey to mike and keep our citizens free. This journey has never been easy, and at times been painful and poignant. The ultimate exercise of freedom is choice. Our Constitution declares that "all men" are created equal. Surely this means all of us. While ever-vigilant for the wisdom that can come from the voices of the voting public, our courts never long tolerated the perpetuation of laws rooted to unlawful prejudice. One of the judiciary's nobles endeavors is to scrutinize laws that emerge from such roots.

If anyone can show me the part of the Constitution that says that "all men are created equal" I will stop posting on this board.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course the government can discriminate if their is a compelling government interest. But of course there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gays as a function of government. Hell, not only does it not have a compelling government interest, it doesn't even rise to the rational basis test standard.

I always find that standard amazing. I care about what's in the people's interest, not what's in government's interest. Why should government subsidize gay relationships with tax breaks?

So couples you don't like shouldn't be treated as other couples are? Is that the American Way?

Yes.

Fee free to prove otherwise by providing historical examples of everyone treating everyone else exactly the same.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, I oppose straight government marriage also, but thanks for playing and have a nice day. Take some parting loser gifts...

What have you actively done in that regard?

Nobody that claims they are against "gubmint marriage" has done diddly (except maybe get legally married themselves).

I have never in my life voted for anyone that supported government regulation of private relationships. Can you say that you have never voted for anyone who opposed gay marriage? I guess that proves I have done more to oppose straight marriage than you have done to support gay marraige.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That comment should give you an idea of what you are dealing with..... earlier he told me that there was no difference between a hunter and a gay person....

"In QW's mind "all hunters are gay and all gays are hunters".. "

Do I intimidate you so much that your only way of dealing with me is lying?

I don't lie, didn't you say the following?

There is no difference between being gay and being a hunter.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8722175-post69.html

I see no reason to deny what I said.

I still get to point out that you lied.

"In QW's mind "all hunters are gay and all gays are hunters".. "

Should I repeat the question for you? Do I intimidate you so much that your only way of dealing with me is lying?

 

[Mertex]

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.

I prefer my position.

They can say, or do, whatever the **** they want, as long as they don't force other people to participate in their lives. In return, I can say, or do, whatever the **** I want, as long as I don't force the gays to participate in my life.

And, no, them dancing naked in the street is not forcing me to participate in their lives anymore than me preaching on the same street is forcing them to participate in mine. In fact, they can dance naked while I preach if they want. I still won't force them to go to church.

So, let the damn woman not bake an ammo cake.....it won't force you to participate in the lives of neither the woman who bakes the cake nor the couple who wants the cake baked....

 

[Mertex]

Do I intimidate you so much that your only way of dealing with me is lying?

I don't lie, didn't you say the following?



http://www.usmessageboard.com/8722175-post69.html

I see no reason to deny what I said.

I still get to point out that you lied.

"In QW's mind "all hunters are gay and all gays are hunters".. "

Should I repeat the question for you? Do I intimidate you so much that your only way of dealing with me is lying?

Yeah, where is the lie....you think all gays are hunters and all hunters are gay...the most absurd thing I've ever heard, but then, nobody can point out to you how stupid your comments are.

 

[Seawytch]

And to add to your comment, if a man does not have the common sense and intelligence not to put his stick in the mud, does that homosexual man have the common sense and intelligence not to tell Children he is a homosexual.

The answer was given to me when my daughter was 10, in school, when her Homosexual teacher told the whole class that he was breaking up with his "life partner".

What right do Homosexuals have to tell 10 year old children that are not theirs about Homosexuality?

Well, this is the beginning of a terrible story that I will end here.

anyone who does not have the intelligence to control their sexual proclivities has not the intelligence to be around children.

So if a straight teacher told their class they were getting married, having a baby, getting a divorce, etc...no biggie

but if one of "the gheys" does it...the world just ends for you?

How old are you?

How about this, tell the teachers, straight or gay or whatever, to keep their private lives out of the classroom completely.

Sure. Show the SAME amount of outrage over MRS Smith teaching class...and using the "MRS" part...flaunting her sexuality like that in public. Where's the outrage?

 

[Seawytch]

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.

I prefer my position.

They can say, or do, whatever the **** they want, as long as they don't force other people to participate in their lives. In return, I can say, or do, whatever the **** I want, as long as I don't force the gays to participate in my life.

And, no, them dancing naked in the street is not forcing me to participate in their lives anymore than me preaching on the same street is forcing them to participate in mine. In fact, they can dance naked while I preach if they want. I still won't force them to go to church.

Cool...as long as we're getting legally married, too...that's great!

 

[Seawytch]

That wasn't the question. What have you actively done to further gay marriage?

No, that wasn't Bod's question, that was yours.



I've donated to marriage equality groups, attended rallies and marches, donated to candidates with an equality agenda and...oh yeah, got married.

Bodeca's question was what have I done to eliminate marriage, so I asked her what she's done to further gay marriage. No answer so far.



I don't even get the question, it's from the bull shit liberal bag of tricks. I think advocating better laws is doing something. Asking people why we need government marriage and making them think about that is one of the most effective things we can do. I don't see throwing money at the problem as being more effective. Liberals love asking that question, then seldom have answers as to what they do to further what they advocate even though they are the ones who are obsessed with asking people they disagree with what they are doing and telling them it's nothing.

We ask the question because that would actually prove your contention. Talking about it only as it relates to gays having equal access to the same legal marriage laws you enjoy, seems like bigotry without any discernible effort to actually get the "government out of marriage"

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.

From the liberal dictionary: Translate: Making a snarky, politically motivated statement which demonstrates no grasp of the actual point made and just has some tertiary connection to a few of the words used in the statement.

Thanks for translating that for me.

The irony is that Kaz does not understand that s/he is projecting.

 

[kaz]

What have you actively done in that regard?

Nobody that claims they are against "gubmint marriage" has done diddly (except maybe get legally married themselves).

I have never in my life voted for anyone that supported government regulation of private relationships. Can you say that you have never voted for anyone who opposed gay marriage? I guess that proves I have done more to oppose straight marriage than you have done to support gay marraige.

Only if she never voted for a Democrat until Obama ... when he ran for his second term ...

 

[Mertex]

And to add to your comment, if a man does not have the common sense and intelligence not to put his stick in the mud, does that homosexual man have the common sense and intelligence not to tell Children he is a homosexual.

The answer was given to me when my daughter was 10, in school, when her Homosexual teacher told the whole class that he was breaking up with his "life partner".

What right do Homosexuals have to tell 10 year old children that are not theirs about Homosexuality?

Well, this is the beginning of a terrible story that I will end here.

anyone who does not have the intelligence to control their sexual proclivities has not the intelligence to be around children.

So if a straight teacher told their class they were getting married, having a baby, getting a divorce, etc...no biggie

but if one of "the gheys" does it...the world just ends for you?

How old are you?

I shared something that happened in my life, I am not sorry that it offends you.

The teacher I speak of told the ten year old children in the San Juan Capistrano School District that he was a homosexual.

Instead of addressing the point I make and joining me in a discussion, you ask a hypothetical question about Hetrosexuals as if that justifies the actions of Homosexual Teachers coming out as homosexuals in a class with ten year old children?

I disagree with you, Children should not be taught homosexuality.

I was not disparaging with you, seems a little illogical to respond as such, sort of like homosexuality is illogical as is the unprofessionalism of this Homosexual Teacher discussing the details of his Homosexual life with children.

And seeing how you seem to lack logic and reason I must tell you that last remark above this one is me insulting you, I am suggesting you may be a homosexual, one who lacks logic and reason.

You seem to have a lot of repressed anger toward homosexuals. Telling someone that they are homosexual is not teaching them homosexuality.....

And your labeling people that are defending the rights of homosexuals as homosexuals just shows how truly immature you are.

 

[kaz]

Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.

From the liberal dictionary: Translate: Making a snarky, politically motivated statement which demonstrates no grasp of the actual point made and just has some tertiary connection to a few of the words used in the statement.

Thanks for translating that for me.

The irony is that Kaz does not understand that s/he is projecting.

That's why you need to "translate" for me!!! Keep digging that hole you're in...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.

I prefer my position.

They can say, or do, whatever the **** they want, as long as they don't force other people to participate in their lives. In return, I can say, or do, whatever the **** I want, as long as I don't force the gays to participate in my life.

And, no, them dancing naked in the street is not forcing me to participate in their lives anymore than me preaching on the same street is forcing them to participate in mine. In fact, they can dance naked while I preach if they want. I still won't force them to go to church.

So, let the damn woman not bake an ammo cake.....it won't force you to participate in the lives of neither the woman who bakes the cake nor the couple who wants the cake baked....

I am not the one arguing that the government can force people to bake cakes, you are.