Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[WorldWatcher]

Yep. And in fact, public accommodation laws for religion have the potential of being problematical too.

Public Accommodation laws (Federal AND State) already provide that businesses can't discriminate based on religion.


>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

Loook at what the idiot Joe posted-----------he wants to ban all religion. Liberals are mentally diseased. They claim that they want freedom for all, equality, tolerance--------but they want to ban religion and force all citizens to worship the state.

This is the lunatic mindset that we are dealing with. Mental illness.

No, he didn't say he wanted to, just that he would be happy if it happened. A famous guy even sang about it..."Imagine".

Is that really much different that folks that just want to ban one religion...like, oh, say Islam?

Absolute flat-out lie!

Here's what we ought to do. We should have a religion license. You report to an office at the top of the Sears Tower. After you turn in your application, Two Burley Attendants will throw you out the nearest window.

If God Catches you on the way down, you get your license.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think we'll have a lot of applications, because they know no one is going to catch them as well as I do.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Loook at what the idiot Joe posted-----------he wants to ban all religion. Liberals are mentally diseased. They claim that they want freedom for all, equality, tolerance--------but they want to ban religion and force all citizens to worship the state.

This is the lunatic mindset that we are dealing with. Mental illness.

No, he didn't say he wanted to, just that he would be happy if it happened. A famous guy even sang about it..."Imagine".

Is that really much different that folks that just want to ban one religion...like, oh, say Islam?

Absolute flat-out lie!

Here's what we ought to do. We should have a religion license. You report to an office at the top of the Sears Tower. After you turn in your application, Two Burley Attendants will throw you out the nearest window.

If God Catches you on the way down, you get your license.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think we'll have a lot of applications, because they know no one is going to catch them as well as I do.

Please limit discussion of your borderline-psychopathic fantasies to the voices in your head and the court-ordered shrink, kooky!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Here's what we ought to do. We should have a religion license. You report to an office at the top of the Sears Tower. After you turn in your application, Two Burley Attendants will throw you out the nearest window.

If God Catches you on the way down, you get your license.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think we'll have a lot of applications, because they know no one is going to catch them as well as I do.

Actually here is a reasonable solution:

1. Provide under the law that for Same-sex Civil Marriage recognized by government entities.

2. Repeal Public Accommodation laws and provide that business owners have rights of property and free association, they are able to refuse service to anyone they want - for any reason. Each business however is required to post in a prominent place and as part of all advertisements a statement of public access. If they don't want to serve n******, or Jews, or Chinks, or Spicts, or gays, or Camel Jockeys, or Gays - no problem. They must however notify (in advance) the public of such a policy.​

It's a win-win. Homosexuals get equal treatment under the law, and business owners get to deny service to groups they don't like.



>>>>

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Here's what we ought to do. We should have a religion license. You report to an office at the top of the Sears Tower. After you turn in your application, Two Burley Attendants will throw you out the nearest window.

If God Catches you on the way down, you get your license.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think we'll have a lot of applications, because they know no one is going to catch them as well as I do.

Actually here is a reasonable solution:

1. Provide under the law that for Same-sex Civil Marriage recognized by government entities.

2. Repeal Public Accommodation laws and provide that business owners have rights of property and free association, they are able to refuse service to anyone they want - for any reason. Each business however is required to post in a prominent place and as part of all advertisements a statement of public access. If they don't want to serve n******, or Jews, or Chinks, or Spicts, or gays, or Camel Jockeys, or Gays - no problem. They must however notify (in advance) the public of such a policy.​

It's a win-win. Homosexuals get equal treatment under the law, and business owners get to deny service to groups they don't like.



>>>>

Sounds reasonable to me

 

[Rikurzhen]

Here's what we ought to do. We should have a religion license. You report to an office at the top of the Sears Tower. After you turn in your application, Two Burley Attendants will throw you out the nearest window.

If God Catches you on the way down, you get your license.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think we'll have a lot of applications, because they know no one is going to catch them as well as I do.

Actually here is a reasonable solution:

1. Provide under the law that for Same-sex Civil Marriage recognized by government entities.

2. Repeal Public Accommodation laws and provide that business owners have rights of property and free association, they are able to refuse service to anyone they want - for any reason. Each business however is required to post in a prominent place and as part of all advertisements a statement of public access. If they don't want to serve n******, or Jews, or Chinks, or Spicts, or gays, or Camel Jockeys, or Gays - no problem. They must however notify (in advance) the public of such a policy.​

It's a win-win. Homosexuals get equal treatment under the law, and business owners get to deny service to groups they don't like.
>>>>

This is reasonable but it fails because you misdiagnose what's really going on. If you look at the actual homosexual marriage statistics you see that it's not really all that popular with homosexuals. They're not marrying at anywhere near a proportionate rate to heterosexuals.

This effort is about normalizing homosexuality.

So allowing people to choose their associations also allows some people to see and treat homosexuals as abnormal. So the tit-for-tat arrangement where homosexuals get civil marriage is DOA because that's not what they really want.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"As far as I can tell, the United States is on the precipice of a true civil war."

Keys

When all else fails, predict or threaten taking up arms, or civil war. I'm sure that I see this on these threads at least 4 times per day. It is very much like the child who threatens to hold his breath until he dies if he does not get his way. What is really weird is that the Right honestly thinks that this will somehow sway the argument and win the day.

All it does to me is to make me sleepy, and bored.

Grow up.

But of course, your ennui is due to your ignorance of history, your failure to perceive the imperatives of liberty versus the causes of tyranny, which are woven into the very fabric of reality, and your naiveté regarding the realities of human nature. Hence, you do not see the danger of undermining the principle of inalienable human rights, the extent to which that has been done in America and, consequently, the signs of the impending disaster.

Your eyes have been glazed over all your life. You've never been awake. Your boredom is due to your short attention span, for the reality, as opposed to the easy bromides of your relativistic dream world, nicely wrapped up and unexamined, is infinitely more complex.

In short, you've never grown up. Lefty is the perpetual adolescent.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I see a lot of things Vandals...life is about manipulating people...for the good and the bad...religion just gets an overly bad rap...

Wow...quoting myself...weird...

Religion gets an overly bad rap and the wrong religion gets the worst bad rap....while the really evil one is explained away...as the heads are chopped, the acid is thrown, the children are buried alive...

But now that they have killed a journalist...the left/government media is all outraged...

This is ridiculous and idiotic.


What's the 'wrong religion,' what religion is 'really evil,' individuals are evil, not religions.


And again, this fails as a hasty generalization fallacy, too broad a brush, the actions of a few are not representative of the whole. Those who do evil in the name of their religion constitute a tiny minority of criminals who alone are responsible for their actions, not religion.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

God. The Creator of the Universe.

Which is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, thankfully.

No. It was made legally and constitutionally irrelevant by judges who divorced the Constitution from the foundational, sociopolitical philosophy of the Republic's founding, which is propounded in the Declaration of Independence, just as judges have been systematically divorcing the Constitution, beginning, most especially, in the 1940s, from the Bill of Rights, the formally enumerated, though not exhaustively so, inalienable rights endowed by God.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I see a lot of things Vandals...life is about manipulating people...for the good and the bad...religion just gets an overly bad rap...

Wow...quoting myself...weird...

Religion gets an overly bad rap and the wrong religion gets the worst bad rap....while the really evil one is explained away...as the heads are chopped, the acid is thrown, the children are buried alive...

But now that they have killed a journalist...the left/government media is all outraged...

This is ridiculous and idiotic.


What's the 'wrong religion,' what religion is 'really evil,' individuals are evil, not religions.


And again, this fails as a hasty generalization fallacy, too broad a brush, the actions of a few are not representative of the whole. Those who do evil in the name of their religion constitute a tiny minority of criminals who alone are responsible for their actions, not religion.

This is true of course, but when SO many "misinterpret" a religion one must question the religion.

Compare and contrast Christianity and Islam in regards to gays for instance. How many Christians have you seen interpret God's word to mean "kill fags?" How many Muslims? And there is a VAST difference between "won't let marry" and "stone to death" whether you want to acknowledge that difference or not makes no difference to its existence.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why didn't these lesbians just demand the master bedroom for the night?

LOL!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Here's what we ought to do. We should have a religion license. You report to an office at the top of the Sears Tower. After you turn in your application, Two Burley Attendants will throw you out the nearest window.

If God Catches you on the way down, you get your license.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think we'll have a lot of applications, because they know no one is going to catch them as well as I do.

Actually here is a reasonable solution:

1. Provide under the law that for Same-sex Civil Marriage recognized by government entities.

2. Repeal Public Accommodation laws and provide that business owners have rights of property and free association, they are able to refuse service to anyone they want - for any reason. Each business however is required to post in a prominent place and as part of all advertisements a statement of public access. If they don't want to serve n******, or Jews, or Chinks, or Spicts, or gays, or Camel Jockeys, or Gays - no problem. They must however notify (in advance) the public of such a policy.​

It's a win-win. Homosexuals get equal treatment under the law, and business owners get to deny service to groups they don't like.



>>>>

Yes. Nicely done. That would be the perfect solution. But, of course. . . .

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Here's what we ought to do. We should have a religion license. You report to an office at the top of the Sears Tower. After you turn in your application, Two Burley Attendants will throw you out the nearest window.

If God Catches you on the way down, you get your license.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think we'll have a lot of applications, because they know no one is going to catch them as well as I do.

Actually here is a reasonable solution:

1. Provide under the law that for Same-sex Civil Marriage recognized by government entities.

2. Repeal Public Accommodation laws and provide that business owners have rights of property and free association, they are able to refuse service to anyone they want - for any reason. Each business however is required to post in a prominent place and as part of all advertisements a statement of public access. If they don't want to serve n******, or Jews, or Chinks, or Spicts, or gays, or Camel Jockeys, or Gays - no problem. They must however notify (in advance) the public of such a policy.​

It's a win-win. Homosexuals get equal treatment under the law, and business owners get to deny service to groups they don't like.
>>>>

This is reasonable but it fails because you misdiagnose what's really going on. If you look at the actual homosexual marriage statistics you see that it's not really all that popular with homosexuals. They're not marrying at anywhere near a proportionate rate to heterosexuals.

This effort is about normalizing homosexuality.

So allowing people to choose their associations also allows some people to see and treat homosexuals as abnormal. So the tit-for-tat arrangement where homosexuals get civil marriage is DOA because that's not what they really want.

Also very true. The reality is that lefty is not about to let go of the institution of marriage or public accommodation laws (PAL). Just ask Clayton Jones what he thinks of either one of those ideas, that is, "privatizing" marriage or abolishing PAL. But I'm imagine WorldWatcher knows that too.

 

[jillian]

Yes, live and let live is not their motto...more gays who will not accept someone not accepting their lifestyle...and so those individuals will be punished...

Blog: NY Farm fined for refusing to host gay wedding

you aren't allowed to discriminate in public accommodation.

try again.

Before Lawrence vs. Texas, one dude wasn't allowed to screw another dude in the privacy of their home.

If we were debating the human right of humans choosing their own sexual partners and I told you that the law permitted the jailing of homosexuals who commit sodomy, would I win that argument?

and before brown v board of ed segregation was legal.

your point?

My point? You pointing to laws which violate human rights doesn't settle the matter.

Precisely. Nicely done, Rikurzhen.

what was nicely done? he said nothing. but then again, neither of you have the slightest understanding that it is not the court decisions which violate human rights, but bigots who violate human rights.

 

[jillian]

It is unreasonable to 'discriminate' against blacks, because they have no CHOICE in 'being black'; and the same with Jews.

There is ABSOLUTELY >NO< evidence; despite DOZENS of major medical studies intent upon FINDING evidence, which shows ANY medical, biological or genetic basis for sexual abnormality. PERIOD.

Now, the reader can rest assured that there will now be a stream of assertions to the contrary, without a scintilla of ACTUAL evidence in support of the baseless assertions.

These people are simply sociopaths. There is a reason that the history of sexual abnormality is that they were institutionalized. What our predecessors learned, was that to allow them to remain in public, they did crap exactly like they're doing now.

Time's quickly approaching to shove 'em back in the closet and NAIL THE DOOR SHUT!

Religion is a choice that is protected by Federal Public Accommodation laws. Whether sexual orientation is a choice or not (it is not) is irrelevant.

Are you advocating institutionalizing gays and lesbians?

Yep. And in fact, public accommodation laws for religion have the potential of being problematical too.

what are you babbling about?

as long as you can go to the religious institution of your choosing (or not) that is what the first amendment guarantees. no religion requires bigotry and our constitution tells you that you can keep it to yourself.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Jesus would not be allowed to join many churches today....

To start off, he was a practicing Jew.

As opposed to a practicing socialist.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

what was nicely done? he said nothing. but then again, neither of you have the slightest understanding that it is not the court decisions which violate human rights, but bigots who violate human rights.

How many times can one person be wrong in a single thread. OF COURSE a court ruling can violate human rights.

How did Loving vs Virginia end up before the Supreme Court, for instance, oh that's right because a court in Virginia originally violated civil rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here's what we ought to do. We should have a religion license. You report to an office at the top of the Sears Tower. After you turn in your application, Two Burley Attendants will throw you out the nearest window.

If God Catches you on the way down, you get your license.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think we'll have a lot of applications, because they know no one is going to catch them as well as I do.

Actually here is a reasonable solution:

1. Provide under the law that for Same-sex Civil Marriage recognized by government entities.

2. Repeal Public Accommodation laws and provide that business owners have rights of property and free association, they are able to refuse service to anyone they want - for any reason. Each business however is required to post in a prominent place and as part of all advertisements a statement of public access. If they don't want to serve n******, or Jews, or Chinks, or Spicts, or gays, or Camel Jockeys, or Gays - no problem. They must however notify (in advance) the public of such a policy.​

It's a win-win. Homosexuals get equal treatment under the law, and business owners get to deny service to groups they don't like.
>>>>

This is reasonable but it fails because you misdiagnose what's really going on. If you look at the actual homosexual marriage statistics you see that it's not really all that popular with homosexuals. They're not marrying at anywhere near a proportionate rate to heterosexuals.

This effort is about normalizing homosexuality.

So allowing people to choose their associations also allows some people to see and treat homosexuals as abnormal. So the tit-for-tat arrangement where homosexuals get civil marriage is DOA because that's not what they really want.

Nonsense.


Whether gay Americans 'accept' allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law in accordance with the 14th Amendment or not is completely irrelevant – one's civil liberties are not subject to opinion polls or popular vote.


This issue has nothing to do with 'normalizing homosexuality,' it has to do with gay Americans seeking their comprehensive civil rights and the consistent application of Constitutional case law, where the states cannot make a class of persons a stranger to their laws.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Here's what we ought to do. We should have a religion license. You report to an office at the top of the Sears Tower. After you turn in your application, Two Burley Attendants will throw you out the nearest window.

If God Catches you on the way down, you get your license.

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think we'll have a lot of applications, because they know no one is going to catch them as well as I do.

Actually here is a reasonable solution:

1. Provide under the law that for Same-sex Civil Marriage recognized by government entities.

2. Repeal Public Accommodation laws and provide that business owners have rights of property and free association, they are able to refuse service to anyone they want - for any reason. Each business however is required to post in a prominent place and as part of all advertisements a statement of public access. If they don't want to serve n******, or Jews, or Chinks, or Spicts, or gays, or Camel Jockeys, or Gays - no problem. They must however notify (in advance) the public of such a policy.​

It's a win-win. Homosexuals get equal treatment under the law, and business owners get to deny service to groups they don't like.
>>>>

This is reasonable but it fails because you misdiagnose what's really going on. If you look at the actual homosexual marriage statistics you see that it's not really all that popular with homosexuals. They're not marrying at anywhere near a proportionate rate to heterosexuals.

This effort is about normalizing homosexuality.

So allowing people to choose their associations also allows some people to see and treat homosexuals as abnormal. So the tit-for-tat arrangement where homosexuals get civil marriage is DOA because that's not what they really want.

Nonsense.


Whether gay Americans 'accept' allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law in accordance with the 14th Amendment or not is completely irrelevant – one's civil liberties are not subject to opinion polls or popular vote.


This issue has nothing to do with 'normalizing homosexuality,' it has to do with gay Americans seeking their comprehensive civil rights and the consistent application of Constitutional case law, where the states cannot make a class of persons a stranger to their laws.

Incorrect. The protection from your rights being violated in this country is WHOLLY up for a vote. A Constitutional Amendment stating that gay's have no legal protections could be passed and ratified tomorrow and it would be the law of the land.

I mean the odds of that happening are somewhere between nil and none , but the COTUS certainly allows for it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

what was nicely done? he said nothing. but then again, neither of you have the slightest understanding that it is not the court decisions which violate human rights, but bigots who violate human rights.

How many times can one person be wrong in a single thread. OF COURSE a court ruling can violate human rights.

How did Loving vs Virginia end up before the Supreme Court, for instance, oh that's right because a court in Virginia originally violated civil rights.

That's not entirely correct, in fact it's mostly incorrect.


With regard to Loving, the state of Virginia violated its residents' civil rights as the consequence of an anti-miscegenation measure, a product of the state's legislative branch of government, not the judicial.