Court Rules--LEGAL To Fire Homo's!

[Moonglow]

You're still a 2nd class ****** and will always be. That's where you belong. Deep down you're upset knowing that.

No American is second class. Some people in America have no class to be sure.

I am sorry you hate your nation, there are other nations that you can move to that you feel is not second class...

 

[saveliberty]

You're still a 2nd class ****** and will always be. That's where you belong. Deep down you're upset knowing that.

No American is second class. Some people in America have no class to be sure.

I am sorry you hate your nation, there are other nations that you can move to that you feel is not second class...

Moon? You want to reread my post? I was replying to Conservative65....

 

[Moonglow]

You're still a 2nd class ****** and will always be. That's where you belong. Deep down you're upset knowing that.

No American is second class. Some people in America have no class to be sure.

I am sorry you hate your nation, there are other nations that you can move to that you feel is not second class...

Moon? You want to reread my post? I was replying to Conservative65....

ok, my mistake..

 

[bodecea]

Does the OP realize that if it's ok to fire homos, it's also ok to fire heteros?

 

[Moonglow]

Does the OP realize that if it's ok to fire homos, it's also ok to fire heteros?

What's new especially in right to work states...They treat you like the garbage........

 

[NLT]

HOT MAMAS

View attachment 83643

Bodey and seabytch?

 

[NLT]

Does the OP realize that if it's ok to fire homos, it's also ok to fire heteros?

you are an idiot

 

[Silhouette]

Does the OP realize that if it's ok to fire homos, it's also ok to fire heteros?

It IS OK to fire heteros you dolt! Job performance. If a gay company wants to fire heteros, or not hire them in preference to gays (MSNBC), then let them. You won't find a bunch of heteros lining up to work there anyway. If you want to work for MSNBC, you had better 1. have a lisp. 2. wear "Rachael Maddow" horn rimmed glasses. (whether or not you need glasses) and 3. Be gay.....or your chances of getting air time there are next to zilch. Just ask Melissa Harris Perry. She had the lisp, but just not the glasses or the gayness. I noticed a veil of ice settle on MSNBC's attitude towards her when she got married...to a man...

 

[Silhouette]

Actually, he is upset that a federal appeals court announced that the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn't apply to sexual orientation, only sex. He's losing it because that distinction was just formally set as a new precedent. He knows the USSC can't rewrite the Act, only Congress can. So what he knows now is, that in order for sexual orientation to finally get the stamp of "class" cemented, the US Supreme Court will have to perform the duties of the legislative branch...failing that, Congress will have to debate the matter and amend the Act to reflect a new category based on behaviors...just some but not others the majority also objects to...

Why would I be upset? The ruling was correct as the Civil Rights Act doesn't mention sexual orientation. Keep beating that straw man, ding dong.

So, rabid defender of Obergefell....how do you think that precedent will affect future challenges to Obergefell? Because as you know...they're coming. It's not just me saying that either. The pro-family groups are gearing up. After all, it's not every day children are permanently divorced from either a father or mother for life as a matter of newly revised contract...at a proposed-revision Hearing where they were not invited, nor had any representation of their own unique share in the marriage contract...written or implied. Be aware that an implied share of a contract is as binding as a written one.

Good luck!

 

[mdk]

Actually, he is upset that a federal appeals court announced that the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn't apply to sexual orientation, only sex. He's losing it because that distinction was just formally set as a new precedent. He knows the USSC can't rewrite the Act, only Congress can. So what he knows now is, that in order for sexual orientation to finally get the stamp of "class" cemented, the US Supreme Court will have to perform the duties of the legislative branch...failing that, Congress will have to debate the matter and amend the Act to reflect a new category based on behaviors...just some but not others the majority also objects to...

Why would I be upset? The ruling was correct as the Civil Rights Act doesn't mention sexual orientation. Keep beating that straw man, ding dong.

So, rabid defender of Obergefell....how do you think that precedent will affect future challenges to Obergefell? Because as you know...they're coming. It's not just me saying that either. The pro-family groups are gearing up.

It won't affect Obergefell in the least. Who cares what pro-family groups are gearing up for? They (and you) can piss and moan until the cows come home about gay marriage, but it hasn't made a lick of difference. Besides, none, what standing would they even have before the court?

Hell, even the GOP removed the marriage amendment from their platform this year. Only you and a small handful of other idiots believe gay marriage is going to be overturned.

 

[mdk]

After all, it's not every day children are permanently divorced from either a father or mother for life as a matter of newly revised contract...at a proposed-revision Hearing where they were not invited, nor had any representation of their own unique share in the marriage contract...written or implied. Be aware that an implied share of a contract is as binding as a written one.

Children are not an implied or a written member in any marriage contract in any state. Only in your imagination and that doesn't have any impact on the reality. Is it any wonder your legal predictions have been so consistently wrong?

Good luck!

 

[Silhouette]

Actually, he is upset that a federal appeals court announced that the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn't apply to sexual orientation, only sex. He's losing it because that distinction was just formally set as a new precedent. He knows the USSC can't rewrite the Act, only Congress can. So what he knows now is, that in order for sexual orientation to finally get the stamp of "class" cemented, the US Supreme Court will have to perform the duties of the legislative branch...failing that, Congress will have to debate the matter and amend the Act to reflect a new category based on behaviors...just some but not others the majority also objects to...

Why would I be upset? The ruling was correct as the Civil Rights Act doesn't mention sexual orientation. Keep beating that straw man, ding dong.

So, rabid defender of Obergefell....how do you think that precedent will affect future challenges to Obergefell? Because as you know...they're coming. It's not just me saying that either. The pro-family groups are gearing up.

It won't affect Obergefell in the least. Who cares what pro-family groups are gearing up for? They (and you) can piss and moan until the cows come home about gay marriage, but it hasn't made a lick of difference. Besides, none, what standing would they even have before the court?

Hell, even the GOP removed the marriage amendment from their platform this year. Only you and a small handful of other idiots believe gay marriage is going to be overturned.

All it takes is one successful challenge. Just one. And as to standing, you can close your eyes and throw a stone. As I said, two Justices were not allowed to preside over Obergefell.. So on that point alone it has to be reheard at the very least since it was a mistrial. Any citizen of any state, or state AG would have standing to challenge the case on Caperton v Massey Coal (2009).

There is no mention of marriage in the US Constitution as a "right". It is a privilege, only allowed to two heteros still in most states. Obergefell is/was illegally done, so it isn't binding and the old laws still apply. Otherwise, instantly, polygamists and incest folks can legally marry since theirs too is nothing but a different type of sexual orientation. As long as polygamists cannot marry, gays cannot marry. In the interest of interpreting the 14th's equality implications evenly across the board.

If not that, a child raised in a gay marriage could come forward and challenge Obergefell for forcing the legal disenfranchisement of them from knowing either the missing mother or missing father they could not bond with because of "gay marriage". They could force a re-hearing at least because children like them had no representation at Obergefell for their de facto implied interest in the marriage contract. Contracts involving children cannot be revised to childrens' detriment. There's your standing.

And now that we know sexual orientation isn't covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act...and that the word "sex" in the Constitution does not equal "sexual orientation" (what one DOES)...Obergefell is going to be ten times harder to defend at the next challenge to it. Which is why I was laughing at your claim that you say you don't care about the OP's legal implications in this case. Of course you do. You know how law works on precedent.

 

[mdk]

Actually, he is upset that a federal appeals court announced that the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn't apply to sexual orientation, only sex. He's losing it because that distinction was just formally set as a new precedent. He knows the USSC can't rewrite the Act, only Congress can. So what he knows now is, that in order for sexual orientation to finally get the stamp of "class" cemented, the US Supreme Court will have to perform the duties of the legislative branch...failing that, Congress will have to debate the matter and amend the Act to reflect a new category based on behaviors...just some but not others the majority also objects to...

Why would I be upset? The ruling was correct as the Civil Rights Act doesn't mention sexual orientation. Keep beating that straw man, ding dong.

So, rabid defender of Obergefell....how do you think that precedent will affect future challenges to Obergefell? Because as you know...they're coming. It's not just me saying that either. The pro-family groups are gearing up.

It won't affect Obergefell in the least. Who cares what pro-family groups are gearing up for? They (and you) can piss and moan until the cows come home about gay marriage, but it hasn't made a lick of difference. Besides, none, what standing would they even have before the court?

Hell, even the GOP removed the marriage amendment from their platform this year. Only you and a small handful of other idiots believe gay marriage is going to be overturned.

All it takes is one successful challenge. Just one. And as to standing, you can close your eyes and throw a stone. As I said, two Justices were not allowed to preside over Obergefell.. So on that point alone it has to be reheard at the very least since it was a mistrial. Any citizen of any state, or state AG would have standing to challenge the case on Caperton v Massey Coal (2009).

If not that, a child raised in a gay marriage could come forward and challenge Obergefell for forcing the legal disenfranchisement of them from knowing either the missing mother or missing father they could not bond with because of "gay marriage". They could force a re-hearing at least because children like them had no representation at Obergefell for their de facto implied interest in the marriage contract. Contracts involving children cannot be revised to childrens' detriment. There's your standing.

Repeating the same tired delusions hasn't worked out in your favor, but you do it daily nevertheless. lol. For the thousandth time, Obergefell wasn't a trial, therefore it can't end in a mistrial. You should be used to closing your eyes. It's what you do every time the law doesn't support wishes.

You pretending children are an implied member in a marriage contract doesn't make it so. Not one state recognizes that legal standard you invited. Not one. Using your standard (that doesn't exist) would also make divorce illegal as contracts cannot revised to a child's detriment according to you. Luckily, we don't have to concern ourselves with your flights of fancy.

So much for your standing. While you keep blindly throwing stones, gays will continue to raise their children and marry. Better get used to that fact.

 

[Silhouette]

Apparently someone was listening to "behaviors aren't a static class" argument and didn't consider that idea "delusion". Refer to the OP for details...

 

[Conservative65]

Nobody gives a shit each time a ****** gets AIDS. Maybe you'll be next

You seem upset. Good.

You're still a 2nd class ****** and will always be. That's where you belong. Deep down you're upset knowing that.

Good thing you can't do anything about it except whining on the web.

You can have the last word now. We both know you desperately want it. Cheers!

Sad thing is you'll never be anything better than 2nd class.

 

[Conservative65]

You're still a 2nd class ****** and will always be. That's where you belong. Deep down you're upset knowing that.

No American is second class. Some people in America have no class to be sure.

Sorry, disagree. If you don't like it, tough shit.

 

[G.T.]

If you support ****** marriages, you grow weaker by the minute.

That's it. Let it all out, whiner.

Here is the extensive list of things you can do about fags getting hitched:

1. Jack
2. Shit

That's it. Prove you're getting weaker by the moment.

Your sullen tears taste delicious.

What they really fear is that gay marriage will have a lower divorce rate as heterosexuals...

That you think I fear any ****** is hilarious.

When it comes to divorce rates, there isn't but one situation that I can control. To use divorce as an example is laughable much like faggots thinking their marriages will ever be to the same level as my heterosexual one. They're still 2nd class no matter what.

Sounds to me like gay people scare you half to death, sounds like you're a terribly judgmental human, cocky, insecure and probably has zero friends or the wherewithall to navigate society.

Paraphrasing: being dropped on your head did ya no good ya angry twit.

 

[Conservative65]

That's it. Let it all out, whiner.

Here is the extensive list of things you can do about fags getting hitched:

1. Jack
2. Shit

That's it. Prove you're getting weaker by the moment.

Your sullen tears taste delicious.

What they really fear is that gay marriage will have a lower divorce rate as heterosexuals...

That you think I fear any ****** is hilarious.

When it comes to divorce rates, there isn't but one situation that I can control. To use divorce as an example is laughable much like faggots thinking their marriages will ever be to the same level as my heterosexual one. They're still 2nd class no matter what.

Sounds to me like gay people scare you half to death, sounds like you're a terribly judgmental human, cocky, insecure and probably has zero friends or the wherewithall to navigate society.

Paraphrasing: being dropped on your head did ya no good ya angry twit.

I have plenty of friends and they're all normal in the sense of this topic.

Scare in what sense?

Wasn't dropped on my head. Seems faggots that chose to be abnormal were and it fucked up their thinking.

 

[bodecea]

Nobody gives a shit each time a ****** gets AIDS. Maybe you'll be next

You seem upset. Good.

You're still a 2nd class ****** and will always be. That's where you belong. Deep down you're upset knowing that.

Good thing you can't do anything about it except whining on the web.

You can have the last word now. We both know you desperately want it. Cheers!

Sad thing is you'll never be anything better than 2nd class.

^ another Drumpf minion speaking Drumpf-like things.

 

[Conservative65]

Nobody gives a shit each time a ****** gets AIDS. Maybe you'll be next

You seem upset. Good.

You're still a 2nd class ****** and will always be. That's where you belong. Deep down you're upset knowing that.

Good thing you can't do anything about it except whining on the web.

You can have the last word now. We both know you desperately want it. Cheers!

Sad thing is you'll never be anything better than 2nd class.

^ another Drumpf minion speaking Drumpf-like things.

^ another freak that thinks choosing to be attracted to someone of the same sex is normal.