BREAKING: FBI Arrests 87-Year-Old Concentration Camp Survivor for Singing Hymns Outside Abortion Clinic Door

[martybegan]

I never claimed I wanted tolerance. I was just dismantling your silly arguments about nature and you're hubris in thinking it needs you to help it define human limitations. There are some things we should absolutely be intolerant about. Like bigotry.

Then you are a forced acceptance fascist ****. Good to know.

Unless that bigotry is directed against religious folks, right? then fire away i guess.

 

[Marener]

I'm not saying sexuality is equal to race or gender, so no, I'm not.

You’re saying that the genders are treated equally because they’re both excluded from the rights the other gender enjoys. They’re separate but equal.

This is the same argument that defended interracial marriage bans. One race could marry a white person and one race couldn’t. That’s equal because the other race “faced the same situation” in your logic. The other race could marry a black person and other race couldn’t. To you, that’s equal protection because they face the same situation.

But obviously that’s wrong. Your logic fails because you’ll deny your logic in Loving and employ it in Obergfell.

 

[Curried Goats]

Then you are a forced acceptance fascist ****. Good to know.

Do you think it should be legal to deny service to people of different races?

Unless that bigotry is directed against religious folks, right? then fire away i guess.

Give an example.

 

[martybegan]

You’re saying that the genders are treated equally because they’re both excluded from the rights the other gender enjoys. They’re separate but equal.

This is the same argument that defended interracial marriage bans. One race could marry a white person and one race couldn’t. That’s equal because the other race “faced the same situation” in your logic. The other race could marry a black person and other race couldn’t. To you, that’s equal protection because they face the same situation.

But obviously that’s wrong. Your logic fails because you’ll deny your logic in Loving and employ it in Obergfell.

You again ignore that I don't see sexuality as an equal protection issue compared to race and gender. Even gender has limited protections in the Constitution with the exception of voting. It's why they push for the ERA. Now gender also has limited restrictions to go along with the lack of protections, but that just means it is neutral on the topic.

Race is specifically called out in the reconstruction amendments, giving a far stronger case to race being an equal protection issue, but to me the neutrality on gender lends gender some of those protections as well.

 

[martybegan]

Do you think it should be legal to deny service to people of different races?

Give an example.

No, and I also think actual PA's can be enforced for point of sale non custom items.

So anyone walks in and wants a muffin, you have to sell it.

The baker can refuse to work a SSM wedding, because he has a right to free exercise, and that trumps the couples right to commerce in this limited case.

 

[Marener]

You again ignore that I don't see sexuality as an equal protection issue compared to race and gender. Even gender has limited protections in the Constitution with the exception of voting. It's why they push for the ERA. Now gender also has limited restrictions to go along with the lack of protections, but that just means it is neutral on the topic.

Race is specifically called out in the reconstruction amendments, giving a far stronger case to race being an equal protection issue, but to me the neutrality on gender lends gender some of those protections as well.

I haven’t raised sexuality at all. You’re claiming genders are treated equally because they’re both excluded from separate rights that the other enjoys.

You’re making the exact argument for gender that was made for race. This has nothing to do with sexuality. You don’t need to talk about sexuality at all. It’s all about gender.

The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment doesn’t say anything about race. It just says citizens. Women are citizens. So are men.

 

[Curried Goats]

No, and I also think actual PA's can be enforced for point of sale non custom items.

So anyone walks in and wants a muffin, you have to sell it.

The baker can refuse to work a SSM wedding, because he has a right to free exercise, and that trumps the couples right to commerce in this limited case.

How is it at all a free exercise issue? Is it against his religion to bake cakes? He was being asked to do something he started a whole ass business to do. Sounds like commerce to me.

 

[schmidlap]

The FBI is completely out of control.

BREAKING: FBI Arrests 87-Year-Old Concentration Camp Survivor for Singing Hymns Outside Abortion Clinic Door - Could Face Year in Federal Prison | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

11 pro-life activists were arrested this month for holding a prayer vigil and singing hymns at the door of the abortion clinic in Mount Juliet, Tennessee.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Attacking public servants enforcing the law is becoming habitual with authoritarian extremists who deny Americans their rights.

Federal charging documents indicate clinic staff and patients were kept from entering the clinic, verbally harassed and in some cases physically assaulted during the protest.

 

[schmidlap]

How is it at all a free exercise issue? Is it against his religion to bake cakes? He was being asked to do something he started a whole ass business to do. Sounds like commerce to me.

A lunch counter that discriminates by refusing to serve customers based on their race sounds like illegal discrimination to me, but some might call it "commerce."

 

[martybegan]

I haven’t raised sexuality at all. You’re claiming genders are treated equally because they’re both excluded from separate rights that the other enjoys.

You’re making the exact argument for gender that was made for race. This has nothing to do with sexuality. You don’t need to talk about sexuality at all. It’s all about gender.

The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment doesn’t say anything about race. It just says citizens. Women are citizens. So are men.

You ignore sexuality, when it is the crux of the issue with SSM, not gender.

 

[martybegan]

How is it at all a free exercise issue? Is it against his religion to bake cakes? He was being asked to do something he started a whole ass business to do. Sounds like commerce to me.

He is being asked to work at an event he finds sinful. Why force him to work in this one instance when plenty of others are out there to take up the slack?

Commerce doesn't override free exercise in this case.

 

[Roudy]

If she were a Democrat trying to set the place on fire, she would have been labeled a hero and Democrat leaders would be coming out of the woodwork praising her vociferously. Merrick Garland and Joe Biden would be personally giving her a medal of freedom by now.

 

[Marener]

You ignore sexuality, when it is the crux of the issue with SSM, not gender.

Gender is inseparable from sexuality. You cannot define sexuality without invoking gender. This is obvious, yet you continue to pretend that it's not the issue and you offer no logic otherwise.

Equal protection applies to both genders and as we've clearly demonstrated the genders were being discriminated against in bans on same sex marriage. One gender cannot marry a woman and one gender can. That's discrimination. It was clearly discrimination when one race could marry a white person when one race couldn't.

In 1996, the Equal Protection clause was extended to include gender. It was an 8-1 decision and guess who was the dissent? ******* Scalia, otherwise known as the intellectual center of the Supreme Court. His dissent he wrote: More specifically, it is my view that "when a practice not expressly prohibited by the text of the Bill of Rights bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use that dates back to the beginning of the Republic, we have no proper basis for striking it down."

Tell me that mother ****** wouldn't have voted to maintain interracial marriage bans if he had been on the court in 1967. After all, the ban on interracial marriage is not "expressly prohibited" and is a tradition that dated back to the beginning of the Republic.

 

[martybegan]

Gender is inseparable from sexuality. You cannot define sexuality without invoking gender. This is obvious, yet you continue to pretend that it's not the issue and you offer no logic otherwise.

Equal protection applies to both genders and as we've clearly demonstrated the genders were being discriminated against in bans on same sex marriage. One gender cannot marry a woman and one gender can. That's discrimination. It was clearly discrimination when one race could marry a white person when one race couldn't.

In 1996, the Equal Protection clause was extended to include gender. It was an 8-1 decision and guess who was the dissent? ******* Scalia, otherwise known as the intellectual center of the Supreme Court. His dissent he wrote: More specifically, it is my view that "when a practice not expressly prohibited by the text of the Bill of Rights bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use that dates back to the beginning of the Republic, we have no proper basis for striking it down."

Tell me that mother ****** wouldn't have voted to maintain interracial marriage bans if he had been on the court in 1967. After all, the ban on interracial marriage is not "expressly prohibited" and is a tradition that dated back to the beginning of the Republic.

All this saying the same thing and being wrong about it. You want gender to equal sexuality, and you justify it on the back end.

You want race to be the same as sexuality and it is clearly not.

 

[schmidlap]

If she were a Democrat trying to set the place on fire, she would have been labeled a hero and Democrat leaders would be coming out of the woodwork praising her vociferously.

If you need to pretend that, you will.

Discriminating against customers based upon their race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or other personal factor that is irrelevant to the commercial transaction is a very poor business practice.

Returning to the topic, federal charging documents indicate clinic staff and patients were kept from entering the clinic, verbally harassed and in some cases physically assaulted during the protest.

That's illegal.

 

[martybegan]

If you need to pretend that, you will.

Discriminating against customers based upon their race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or other personal factor that is irrelevant to the commercial transaction is a very poor business practice.

Returning to the topic, federal charging documents indicate clinic staff and patients were kept from entering the clinic, verbally harassed and in some cases physically assaulted during the protest.

That's illegal.

"verbally harassed"

Considering SJW's think just hearing something they don't like is harassment, I find the accusation wanting.

Remember the SJW mantra: "Our violence is speech, your speech is violence"

 

[schmidlap]

"verbally harassed"

The charge notes that "patients were kept from entering the clinic, verbally harassed and in some cases physically assaulted during the protest."

It will be adjudicated.

 

[martybegan]

The charge notes that "patients were kept from entering the clinic, verbally harassed and in some cases physically assaulted during the protest."

It will be adjudicated.

Just like all those anti-fa bombings and arsons......

 

[schmidlap]

Just like all those anti-fa bombings and arsons......

I am unaware of any law enforcement agencies refusing to enforce the law in whatever crimes you reference.

 

[martybegan]

I am unaware of any law enforcement agencies refusing to enforce the law in whatever crimes you reference.

Stay under your rock.