Court Rules--LEGAL To Fire Homo's!

[Skylar]

The Justices are already on alert for overreach in Obergefell for this incorrect addition to the meaning of "sex" in the 14th...so I'd be surprised if they're willing to tempt fate twice on the same misinterpretation...especially if the GOP gets its shit together, gets Trump to step down and gets a true conservative that polls beating Hillary in the Fall, instead of losing to her.

Um, Sil.....Obergefell never 'interpreted' that sex is the same thing as sexual orientation. You're just making shit up again. Every time you talk about the case, you imagine it differently.

And your imagination is legally meaningless.

Back in reality, Hively and Obergefell have nothing to do with each other. You insist they do. And you're always wrong on legal predictions. Literally. You've never once offered us an accurate legal prediction on any case.

Ever.

 

[mdk]

The Justices are already on alert for overreach in Obergefell for this incorrect addition to the meaning of "sex" in the 14th...so I'd be surprised if they're willing to tempt fate twice on the same misinterpretation...especially if the GOP gets its shit together, gets Trump to step down and gets a true conservative that polls beating Hillary in the Fall, instead of losing to her.

Um, Sil.....Obergefell never 'interpreted' that sex is the same thing as sexual orientation. You're just making shit up again. Every time you talk about the case, you imagine it differently.

And your imagination is legally meaningless.

Back in reality, Hively and Obergefell have nothing to do with each other. You insist they do. And you're always wrong on legal predictions. Literally. You've never once offered us an accurate legal prediction on any case.

Ever.

That's not true. Sil predicted the outcome of this case that she only knew existed as a result of this thread. lol

 

[Skylar]

The Justices are already on alert for overreach in Obergefell for this incorrect addition to the meaning of "sex" in the 14th...so I'd be surprised if they're willing to tempt fate twice on the same misinterpretation...especially if the GOP gets its shit together, gets Trump to step down and gets a true conservative that polls beating Hillary in the Fall, instead of losing to her.

Um, Sil.....Obergefell never 'interpreted' that sex is the same thing as sexual orientation. You're just making shit up again. Every time you talk about the case, you imagine it differently.

And your imagination is legally meaningless.

Back in reality, Hively and Obergefell have nothing to do with each other. You insist they do. And you're always wrong on legal predictions. Literally. You've never once offered us an accurate legal prediction on any case.

Ever.

That's not true. Sil predicted the outcome of this case that she only knew existed as a result of this thread. lol

Like her 'prediction' that the Pope was coming to America.....after the Pope announced the visit?

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Ah, the choir is patting itself on the back...while it scrambles to do damage control behind the scenes on Hively v Ivy Tech. Yes, your raised activity levels and ad hominems on this topic are drawing attention to your desperation guys..

Like her 'prediction' that the Pope was coming to America.....after the Pope announced the visit?

I think it was about two years before he announced. But you can keep lying if it suits you. Other posters here and elsewhere remember my saying he would come before 2016 and nudge Hispanics towards remembering that marriage is a sacred bond only between a man and a woman. And that's EXACTLY what he did.

 

[Skylar]

Like her 'prediction' that the Pope was coming to America.....after the Pope announced the visit?

I think it was about two years before he announced.

So you say. But when we asked you to show us......you can't.

And of course, you've retconned your own history....claiming to have predicted the outcome of Hively. But you didn't. You never mentioned Hively once until AFTER the ruling came down.

Again, Sil....why? You're only lying to yourself. You know you're full of shit. We know you're full of shit. And you know we know.

So what's the point? Nothing happens.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


So what the update on the impeachment of those two Justices?


>>>>

 

[mdk]

^^ Ah, the choir is patting itself on the back...while it scrambles to do damage control behind the scenes on Hively v Ivy Tech. Yes, your raised activity levels and ad hominems on this topic are drawing attention to your desperation guys..

The desperation is thick in this thread and if you wish to find the source of it look no further then the mirror.

 

[Skylar]

^^ Ah, the choir is patting itself on the back...while it scrambles to do damage control behind the scenes on Hively v Ivy Tech. Yes, your raised activity levels and ad hominems on this topic are drawing attention to your desperation guys..

The desperation is thick in this thread and if you wish to find the source of it look no further then the mirror.

Laughing.....its like watching a dog chase her own tail. Hively is about employeers and employees. It has nothing to do with marriage, nor Obergefell. Which the Hively court emphasized in their ruling

And finally, two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, same‐sex couples had the right to marry in every state of the Union. (Obergefell v. Hodges 2015). We emphasize yet again that none of these cases directly impacts the statutory interpretations of Title VII.

The Supreme Court neither created Title VII nor was required to address any issues regarding employment discrimination in considering the issues it chose to address.

Opinion | Lambda Legal

Yet as Sil is prone to do, she's ignoring the very ruling she claims to cite....ignores them dismissing any impact from Obergefell, ignores the Hively court acknowledging that the Obergefell court never even addressed the issues raise in Hively.

And having ignored the Hively decision......Sil just starts making shit up about it. Following the exact same pattern she does in every legal thread:

Sil makes shit up. It has nothing to do with the law. Nothing happens.

 

[Conservative65]

No one has the right to bigamy.

Wait...I'm confused. You argue for years that gays should not be disallowed marriage because of their sexual orientation.

I've argued that same sex couples should be allowed to marry like opposite sex couples. How is that confusing?

And bigamy is the marrying of more than one person. That sexual orientation is polyamory: wanting to have sex with multiple partners.

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. And bigamy is illegal for everyone. There's no group that has the right to bigamy, nor is bigamy a recognized and protected right. There's simply no part of this you got right.

Next piece of pseudo-legal nonsense please.

If you next bring up "how this or that sexual orientation marrying might affect children" we MOST DEFINITELY can "go there"...lol... Because I'd love to talk about children being divorced from either a mother or father for life..not to mention how you've asserted numerous times that the discussion of children relative to the marriage contract is moot, because you assert that children aren't even implied partners to the marriage contract.

The Supreme Court already found that same sex marriage benefits children and denying same sex parents marriage hurts children. Both the Windsor and Obergefell ruling find this repeatedly.

So predictably, you ignore the findings of the USSC and insist that you know better. Alas, that's not how the law works. As the findings of the USSC are binding precedent. And your subjective opinion is legally meaningless.

Do you see why your pseudo-legal fixations always result in.....nothing?

According to you yourself, any combination of adults may marry and involve children because kids don't have a say in, and don't matter in who does and doesn't marry.

According to me, citing the United States Supreme Court same sex couples and opposite sex couples have the right to marry.

You cite yourself. I cite the courts. Our sources are not equal.

The court's decision was based on equal protection not same sex marriage.

The courts decision was that because of equal protection and due process requirements of the 5th and 14th amendment, same sex marriage was a constitutional right.

See how that works? Cause and effect.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

Continue to be a freak of nature, ******. You really don't matter.

 

[Skylar]

No one has the right to bigamy.

Wait...I'm confused. You argue for years that gays should not be disallowed marriage because of their sexual orientation.

I've argued that same sex couples should be allowed to marry like opposite sex couples. How is that confusing?

And bigamy is the marrying of more than one person. That sexual orientation is polyamory: wanting to have sex with multiple partners.

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. And bigamy is illegal for everyone. There's no group that has the right to bigamy, nor is bigamy a recognized and protected right. There's simply no part of this you got right.

Next piece of pseudo-legal nonsense please.

If you next bring up "how this or that sexual orientation marrying might affect children" we MOST DEFINITELY can "go there"...lol... Because I'd love to talk about children being divorced from either a mother or father for life..not to mention how you've asserted numerous times that the discussion of children relative to the marriage contract is moot, because you assert that children aren't even implied partners to the marriage contract.

The Supreme Court already found that same sex marriage benefits children and denying same sex parents marriage hurts children. Both the Windsor and Obergefell ruling find this repeatedly.

So predictably, you ignore the findings of the USSC and insist that you know better. Alas, that's not how the law works. As the findings of the USSC are binding precedent. And your subjective opinion is legally meaningless.

Do you see why your pseudo-legal fixations always result in.....nothing?

According to you yourself, any combination of adults may marry and involve children because kids don't have a say in, and don't matter in who does and doesn't marry.

According to me, citing the United States Supreme Court same sex couples and opposite sex couples have the right to marry.

You cite yourself. I cite the courts. Our sources are not equal.

The court's decision was based on equal protection not same sex marriage.

The courts decision was that because of equal protection and due process requirements of the 5th and 14th amendment, same sex marriage was a constitutional right.

See how that works? Cause and effect.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

Continue to be a freak of nature, ******. You really don't matter.

Whatever. Your awkward attempts at insults are gloriously irrelevant to anyone else's marriage, rights or freedoms.

 

[Conservative65]

Wait...I'm confused. You argue for years that gays should not be disallowed marriage because of their sexual orientation.

I've argued that same sex couples should be allowed to marry like opposite sex couples. How is that confusing?

And bigamy is the marrying of more than one person. That sexual orientation is polyamory: wanting to have sex with multiple partners.

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. And bigamy is illegal for everyone. There's no group that has the right to bigamy, nor is bigamy a recognized and protected right. There's simply no part of this you got right.

Next piece of pseudo-legal nonsense please.

If you next bring up "how this or that sexual orientation marrying might affect children" we MOST DEFINITELY can "go there"...lol... Because I'd love to talk about children being divorced from either a mother or father for life..not to mention how you've asserted numerous times that the discussion of children relative to the marriage contract is moot, because you assert that children aren't even implied partners to the marriage contract.

The Supreme Court already found that same sex marriage benefits children and denying same sex parents marriage hurts children. Both the Windsor and Obergefell ruling find this repeatedly.

So predictably, you ignore the findings of the USSC and insist that you know better. Alas, that's not how the law works. As the findings of the USSC are binding precedent. And your subjective opinion is legally meaningless.

Do you see why your pseudo-legal fixations always result in.....nothing?

According to you yourself, any combination of adults may marry and involve children because kids don't have a say in, and don't matter in who does and doesn't marry.

According to me, citing the United States Supreme Court same sex couples and opposite sex couples have the right to marry.

You cite yourself. I cite the courts. Our sources are not equal.

The court's decision was based on equal protection not same sex marriage.

The courts decision was that because of equal protection and due process requirements of the 5th and 14th amendment, same sex marriage was a constitutional right.

See how that works? Cause and effect.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

Continue to be a freak of nature, ******. You really don't matter.

Whatever. Your awkward attempts at insults are gloriously irrelevant to anyone else's marriage, rights or freedoms.

Your choice to be a ****** means any marriage your in won't ever be to the level of mine. Mine was accepted because it's natural and normal. You had to have the Constitution misinterpreted in order to have ****** marriages upheld. Tell me which one is on a higher level.

 

[Skylar]

I've argued that same sex couples should be allowed to marry like opposite sex couples. How is that confusing?

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. And bigamy is illegal for everyone. There's no group that has the right to bigamy, nor is bigamy a recognized and protected right. There's simply no part of this you got right.

Next piece of pseudo-legal nonsense please.

The Supreme Court already found that same sex marriage benefits children and denying same sex parents marriage hurts children. Both the Windsor and Obergefell ruling find this repeatedly.

So predictably, you ignore the findings of the USSC and insist that you know better. Alas, that's not how the law works. As the findings of the USSC are binding precedent. And your subjective opinion is legally meaningless.

Do you see why your pseudo-legal fixations always result in.....nothing?

According to me, citing the United States Supreme Court same sex couples and opposite sex couples have the right to marry.

You cite yourself. I cite the courts. Our sources are not equal.

The court's decision was based on equal protection not same sex marriage.

The courts decision was that because of equal protection and due process requirements of the 5th and 14th amendment, same sex marriage was a constitutional right.

See how that works? Cause and effect.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

Continue to be a freak of nature, ******. You really don't matter.

Whatever. Your awkward attempts at insults are gloriously irrelevant to anyone else's marriage, rights or freedoms.

Your choice to be a ****** means any marriage your in won't ever be to the level of mine. Mine was accepted because it's natural and normal. You had to have the Constitution misinterpreted in order to have ****** marriages upheld. Tell me which one is on a higher level.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.

See how that works?

 

[Conservative65]

The court's decision was based on equal protection not same sex marriage.

The courts decision was that because of equal protection and due process requirements of the 5th and 14th amendment, same sex marriage was a constitutional right.

See how that works? Cause and effect.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

Continue to be a freak of nature, ******. You really don't matter.

Whatever. Your awkward attempts at insults are gloriously irrelevant to anyone else's marriage, rights or freedoms.

Your choice to be a ****** means any marriage your in won't ever be to the level of mine. Mine was accepted because it's natural and normal. You had to have the Constitution misinterpreted in order to have ****** marriages upheld. Tell me which one is on a higher level.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.

See how that works?

Says common sense. Nothing had to be twisted and misinterpreted for me to be able to marry. Faggots can't say the same.

Since you chose to be a homo, you've decided to be 2nd class by that choice.

 

[Skylar]

The courts decision was that because of equal protection and due process requirements of the 5th and 14th amendment, same sex marriage was a constitutional right.

See how that works? Cause and effect.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

Continue to be a freak of nature, ******. You really don't matter.

Whatever. Your awkward attempts at insults are gloriously irrelevant to anyone else's marriage, rights or freedoms.

Your choice to be a ****** means any marriage your in won't ever be to the level of mine. Mine was accepted because it's natural and normal. You had to have the Constitution misinterpreted in order to have ****** marriages upheld. Tell me which one is on a higher level.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.

See how that works?

Says common sense. Nothing had to be twisted and misinterpreted for me to be able to marry. Faggots can't say the same.

Since you chose to be a homo, you've decided to be 2nd class by that choice.

Says you, pretending you have common sense. It doesn't matter what you think, what you believe, or what you do.

You're gloriously irrelevant. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

 

[Conservative65]

Continue to be a freak of nature, ******. You really don't matter.

Whatever. Your awkward attempts at insults are gloriously irrelevant to anyone else's marriage, rights or freedoms.

Your choice to be a ****** means any marriage your in won't ever be to the level of mine. Mine was accepted because it's natural and normal. You had to have the Constitution misinterpreted in order to have ****** marriages upheld. Tell me which one is on a higher level.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.

See how that works?

Says common sense. Nothing had to be twisted and misinterpreted for me to be able to marry. Faggots can't say the same.

Since you chose to be a homo, you've decided to be 2nd class by that choice.

Says you, pretending you have common sense. It doesn't matter what you think, what you believe, or what you do.

You're gloriously irrelevant. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

You're still a 2nd class ****** and there's nothing you can do about it. I'm not the one that had to have something twisted to allow me to do something. I was able to do it because it's normal for the type marriage I have.

 

[Skylar]

Whatever. Your awkward attempts at insults are gloriously irrelevant to anyone else's marriage, rights or freedoms.

Your choice to be a ****** means any marriage your in won't ever be to the level of mine. Mine was accepted because it's natural and normal. You had to have the Constitution misinterpreted in order to have ****** marriages upheld. Tell me which one is on a higher level.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.

See how that works?

Says common sense. Nothing had to be twisted and misinterpreted for me to be able to marry. Faggots can't say the same.

Since you chose to be a homo, you've decided to be 2nd class by that choice.

Says you, pretending you have common sense. It doesn't matter what you think, what you believe, or what you do.

You're gloriously irrelevant. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

You're still a 2nd class ****** and there's nothing you can do about it. I'm not the one that had to have something twisted to allow me to do something. I was able to do it because it's normal for the type marriage I have.

Whatever. Remember to ask your nurse for extra jello.

 

[Conservative65]

Your choice to be a ****** means any marriage your in won't ever be to the level of mine. Mine was accepted because it's natural and normal. You had to have the Constitution misinterpreted in order to have ****** marriages upheld. Tell me which one is on a higher level.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.

See how that works?

Says common sense. Nothing had to be twisted and misinterpreted for me to be able to marry. Faggots can't say the same.

Since you chose to be a homo, you've decided to be 2nd class by that choice.

Says you, pretending you have common sense. It doesn't matter what you think, what you believe, or what you do.

You're gloriously irrelevant. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

You're still a 2nd class ****** and there's nothing you can do about it. I'm not the one that had to have something twisted to allow me to do something. I was able to do it because it's normal for the type marriage I have.

Whatever. Remember to ask your nurse for extra jello.

Remember, you'll never be anything but a 2nd class ******.

 

[Skylar]

>


So what the update on the impeachment of those two Justices?


>>>>

I wouldn't hold your breath. Sil favors 'fire and forget' arguments. She makes up silly nonsense, she's laughably wrong, and she never speaks of it again.