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

[Seawytch]

There are people in the North that would gladly inform of of the economic justification for slavery. They are just as wrong about their arguments as the rednecks who think the Bible justifies it.

Absolutely! And?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Congressmen? Why so hateful towards women? Misogynist

Deflecting from your inaction? Have you called to demand the repeal of all Federal PA laws? Do you support states rights when it comes to PA laws?

Why don't you try oh I don't know READING what other people write instead of just assuming.

I CLEARLY said I support gays being able to marry - you accused me of being against

I CLEARLY stated that I oppose federal PA laws but think states have the right to do so - and you again asked me what I thought

I CLEARLY stated that I have written my Congressperson to that effect - yet you badger to me answer that which I have already answered.

If you're here to discuss fine, but if all you're here to do is whine about how mistreated you are, bug off.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This

"Mother do show me a slave as soon as the steamer gets near enough."


This request was made by a beautiful young lady, as she stood on the deck of a large steamer that was nearing the port of Savannah. It was her first trip South. The fulfillment of a promise of long standing, made to a dear uncle, that when her education was completed she would pay him a visit. He had left New England when quite young, and having married a Southern lady, seldom returned except on business, or to spend a few weeks with his aged parents.


In contemplating this visit there was but one thing that marred the anticipated pleasure of the mother and daughter, that was the idea of seeing the poor slave in chains, of listening to his groans of anguish, while they were powerless to free him from his bondage.


They had been led to regard as real, all the tales of woe, all the horrible tragedies, of which they had so often read in speeches, sermons, books or newspapers. They were sincere in believing slavery to be the "sum of all villanies;" and they had mutually agreed to give their influence to the cause of "human liberty, and equal rights," in other words, to abolitionism.


Fully expecting to see the negroes chained together and bearing heavy iron weights, the curiosity of Miss Nellie Norton was fully awake to catch the first glimpse of a slave.


The steamer having reached the wharf, the passengers came thronging to the shore, some after long absence eager to receive the affectionate greeting of their friends, some in search of pleasure, while others, with pallid cheeks and wasted forms, have come to seek new life and strength from the balmy breezes of a more Southern clime.


"And sure enough you've come, sister; welcome to our Southern soil and home. I am so happy to see you." Mrs. Norton threw her arms around the neck of her brother, and for a moment both shed tears of joy at meeting again after so long an absence. "And Nellie, dear Nellie, is this you! Surely this is not my little Nellie

is clearly a fictional piece LOL I mean CLEARLY

Yep I can you see now claiming that Mowgli from Jungle Book is an expert witness on living in the jungle LOL

Sorry but how does that make both testimonies to be works of fiction?

Fictional stories are not testimony.

Post a SINGLE quote from a verifiable source contained in either of your links. You can't do it, because all the quotes in your sources are from FICTIONAL characters.

 

[Seawytch]

Why don't you try oh I don't know READING what other people write instead of just assuming.

I CLEARLY said I support gays being able to marry - you accused me of being against

I CLEARLY stated that I oppose federal PA laws but think states have the right to do so - and you again asked me what I thought

I CLEARLY stated that I have written my Congressperson to that effect - yet you badger to me answer that which I have already answered.

If you're here to discuss fine, but if all you're here to do is whine about how mistreated you are, bug off.

Sorry must have missed the post where you contacted your legislator. And their response was?

All PA laws that protect gays were passed at the state level.

 

[Seawytch]

Fictional stories are not testimony.

Post a SINGLE quote from a verifiable source contained in either of your links. You can't do it, because all the quotes in your sources are from FICTIONAL characters.

You were given plenty. Two whole books, written AT THE TIME in support of slavery ARE quotes.

 

[Seawytch]

And that's just slavery...plenty of quotes to be found on biblical segregation and anti miscegenation.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Fictional stories are not testimony.

Post a SINGLE quote from a verifiable source contained in either of your links. You can't do it, because all the quotes in your sources are from FICTIONAL characters.

You were given plenty. Two whole books, written AT THE TIME in support of slavery ARE quotes.

I give up. You are dishonest as all get out.

Clearly the books you referenced are fictional, they are FICTION. Maybe the rest of the board will tolerate your dishonesty, but I will not.

 

[bodecea]

Fictional stories are not testimony.

Post a SINGLE quote from a verifiable source contained in either of your links. You can't do it, because all the quotes in your sources are from FICTIONAL characters.

You were given plenty. Two whole books, written AT THE TIME in support of slavery ARE quotes.

I give up. You are dishonest as all get out.

Clearly the books you referenced are fictional, they are FICTION. Maybe the rest of the board will tolerate your dishonesty, but I will not.

They are not...they are Primary Sources from the time period.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Fictional stories are not testimony.

Post a SINGLE quote from a verifiable source contained in either of your links. You can't do it, because all the quotes in your sources are from FICTIONAL characters.

You were given plenty. Two whole books, written AT THE TIME in support of slavery ARE quotes.

I give up. You are dishonest as all get out.

Clearly the books you referenced are fictional, they are FICTION. Maybe the rest of the board will tolerate your dishonesty, but I will not.

They are not...they are Primary Sources from the time period.

Yes, and so was Huck Finn



Is your dishonestly borne of your being gay, or are you gay because of your dishonesty?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Absolutely! And?

Just pointing out that g5000 is an idiot.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This is one confused mess after another.

The top of the post is the only thing that matters, really, as the rest of the madness flows from that fount.

You didn't define precisely what rights you were talking with regard to homosexuals. That's the whole point. See embolden text above. Note the parenthetical undefined. But you did link your query to PA Public Accommodation in an incoherent, albeit, inverse fashion with regard to both groups. Dude. You're not saying anything different than I. You're just imaging a difference.

Then you write this: "I said PA laws protect Christians from discrimination."

And that, confused one, is the essence of the debate. PA Public Accommodation DOES NOT protect Christians. It violates the hell out of them, as it allows homosexuals to trample all over them.

And why is that true? Because you will not allow for any exceptions regarding business transactions that would directly entangle Christians in your religious rituals. For crying out loud! That's all you need to do. Problem solved, as that would be as close to perfection as we could practically get. Public Accommodation isn't going anywhere. It's established case law in PA and at the federal level. Your suggestion that we abolish it rather than refine it is disingenuous bullshit! While that would be the perfect solution, it is not a politically attainable solution, once again, because you guys and nobody else but you guys oppose that, tooth and nail. Disingenuous bullshit piled atop disingenuous bullshit. You aren't fooling anybody.

We're not going to fight to abolish it. That's a no win. We're going shove it up your asses in civil disobedience as that is the only recourse that is left to us. Knock. Knock. Anybody home?

And you have been told over and over and over again why that is true. Only a sociopath or a retard would fail to
empathize with us or recognize the reality. Hence, your premise is false rendering the rest of your post moot, and you still refuse to acknowledge the truth.

Now read this link, as you guys don't believe or can't grasp what's coming; you're delusional: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/liberal-quest-to-rehabilitate-christians-the-homofascist-rainbow-shirts-are-at-it-again/

The only "right" gays are currently denied is the right to civilly marry. I never claimed PA laws are a right, they are a FACT. (A fact that has withstood constitutional challenge.

If there is no political will to get rid of all of them, then STFU just because in some locations they protect gays from discrimination like the do Christians.

Check? Just like I said.

You homofascists will not allow for any exceptions regarding business transactions that would directly entangle Christians in your religious rituals, and you don't care that this constitutes an unambiguous infringement, not on any civil right/protection, but on an inalienable human right, i.e., a First Amendment civil liberty? So it's not and never has been about equal treatment, but domination. You are not asserting the rule of law, but invoking the rule of the jungle.

Behold, people, the monstrously tyrranical and depraved filth that homofascists are.

Inalienable rights cannot be granted, created, revoked or transferred. They are nonnegotiable. I don't need your permission to have them, and I don't unilaterally owe you anything to have them. You're mad.

Biblical Christians will not obey the state. That's our option. We are not your slaves. So the book you're reading from to justify your subjugation of your fellow human beings is Public Accommodation, eh?

That leaves you the options to fine, to beat, to jail or to kill. Choose.

Good luck with that.

 

[Redfish]

Congressmen? Why so hateful towards women? Misogynist

Deflecting from your inaction? Have you called to demand the repeal of all Federal PA laws? Do you support states rights when it comes to PA laws?

Why don't you try oh I don't know READING what other people write instead of just assuming.

I CLEARLY said I support gays being able to marry - you accused me of being against

I CLEARLY stated that I oppose federal PA laws but think states have the right to do so - and you again asked me what I thought

I CLEARLY stated that I have written my Congressperson to that effect - yet you badger to me answer that which I have already answered.

If you're here to discuss fine, but if all you're here to do is whine about how mistreated you are, bug off.

wytchey has an agenda. she is disengenuous. do not take her seriously. She is a frustrated bull dyke with the hots for Hillary Clinton.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is one confused mess after another.

The top of the post is the only thing that matters, really, as the rest of the madness flows from that fount.

You didn't define precisely what rights you were talking with regard to homosexuals. That's the whole point. See embolden text above. Note the parenthetical undefined. But you did link your query to PA Public Accommodation in an incoherent, albeit, inverse fashion with regard to both groups. Dude. You're not saying anything different than I. You're just imaging a difference.

Then you write this: "I said PA laws protect Christians from discrimination."

And that, confused one, is the essence of the debate. PA Public Accommodation DOES NOT protect Christians. It violates the hell out of them, as it allows homosexuals to trample all over them.

And why is that true? Because you will not allow for any exceptions regarding business transactions that would directly entangle Christians in your religious rituals. For crying out loud! That's all you need to do. Problem solved, as that would be as close to perfection as we could practically get. Public Accommodation isn't going anywhere. It's established case law in PA and at the federal level. Your suggestion that we abolish it rather than refine it is disingenuous bullshit! While that would be the perfect solution, it is not a politically attainable solution, once again, because you guys and nobody else but you guys oppose that, tooth and nail. Disingenuous bullshit piled atop disingenuous bullshit. You aren't fooling anybody.

We're not going to fight to abolish it. That's a no win. We're going shove it up your asses in civil disobedience as that is the only recourse that is left to us. Knock. Knock. Anybody home?

And you have been told over and over and over again why that is true. Only a sociopath or a retard would fail to
empathize with us or recognize the reality. Hence, your premise is false rendering the rest of your post moot, and you still refuse to acknowledge the truth.

Now read this link, as you guys don't believe or can't grasp what's coming; you're delusional: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/liberal-quest-to-rehabilitate-christians-the-homofascist-rainbow-shirts-are-at-it-again/

The only "right" gays are currently denied is the right to civilly marry. I never claimed PA laws are a right, they are a FACT. (A fact that has withstood constitutional challenge.

If there is no political will to get rid of all of them, then STFU just because in some locations they protect gays from discrimination like the do Christians.

Check? Just like I said.

You homofascists will not allow for any exceptions regarding business transactions that would directly entangle Christians in your religious rituals, and you don't care that this constitutes an unambiguous infringement, not on any civil right/protection, but on an inalienable human right, i.e., a First Amendment civil liberty? So it's not and never has been about equal treatment, but domination. You are not asserting the rule of law, but invoking the rule of the jungle.

Behold, people, the monstrously tyrranical and depraved filth that homofascists are.

Inalienable rights cannot be granted, created, revoked or transferred. They are nonnegotiable. I don't need your permission to have them, and I don't unilaterally owe you anything to have them. You're mad.

Biblical Christians will not obey the state. That's our option.

That leaves you the options to fine, to beat, to jail or to kill. Choose.

Good luck with that.

Just curious...


So these religious exemptions you want to complying with generally applicable law, do they only apply to homosexuals or can other claim a religious exemption also? I mean can someone claim their personal religious beliefs are that the races shouldn't mix and therefore can not provide service to an interracial couple? Or maybe someone who doesn't believe in a Christian marrying a Hindu, can they deny service to interfaith couples?

And who gets to be the test of these religious principals? The individual? The government? If the individual, then the reality is that any individual can claim a religious exemption they just have to mouth the words "it's my religious belief" right? If the government, we now have government sanctioning what is and isn't a valid religious belief? Is that really what you want?



>>>>

 

[Londoner]

A business in Mass was also fined. Turned out they had received generous tax breaks from the state, and it was the nature of the tax breaks that made them vulnerable. Problem is, you can't discriminate when you're poaching public money. I'm not saying the NY Farm is similar, but we sheeple rarely hear the whole story. Knowing NYS, I suspect the Farm is being F'd in the A.

Same story as the Jim Crowe South. If the haters could whip gays legally, some of them would. We'd see segregated bussing, hospitals and schools.

 

[Londoner]

Kp

 

[g5000]

Again for that much-needed reality check: Gay sexual behaviors and the cult promoting that lifestyle are in no way = to race.

Here's a reality check: Gay rights are identical to civil rights when it comes to equal protection of the laws. The burden is on those who would oppress them to prove a social harm would result if the minority group were given equal rights.

None of you bigots has ever been able to meet that burden of proof with respect to homosexuals or blacks.

I'm not a bigot , but I will gladly destroy the above post of yours.

I am for EQUAL rights for all,meaning I have the right to tell ANYONE to get the hell out of my business for ANY reason. In fact,I will go one better, I shouldn't even have to have or state a reason why I don't want to do business with someone. It is that simple.

This is called "moving the goal posts".

Nevertheless, you just claimed that gay rights were not equal to civil rights. After I booted that idiotic claim, you then made a statement which is equally applicable to gays and blacks! You want the right to boot ANYONE (which means blacks or homosexuals or anyone else you might hate) from your place of business! You made the IDENTICAL argument racists made over lunch counters. You just established the similarities between the struggle for gay rights and civil rights!

Well done! Thank you!

LOLWUT. I guarantee you that you won't find anywhere where I have commented on gay rights being dissimilar to civil rights. I've never done so. Perhaps you have me mixed up with another poster, or perhaps you're just naturally dishonest and paint everyone who disagrees with you at all into one group.

In fact Mr Dishonest, I have CLEARLY stated in THIS thread that I don't care if they marry.

Yes, I see you insinuated yourself into a conversation I was having with someone else.

Regardless, you utterly failed at your boastful attempt to "destroy" my post. You actually vindicated it instead by using the identical argument used by racists over Whites Only lunch counters. So, again, I thank you.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This is one confused mess after another.

The top of the post is the only thing that matters, really, as the rest of the madness flows from that fount.

You didn't define precisely what rights you were talking with regard to homosexuals. That's the whole point. See embolden text above. Note the parenthetical undefined. But you did link your query to PA Public Accommodation in an incoherent, albeit, inverse fashion with regard to both groups. Dude. You're not saying anything different than I. You're just imaging a difference.

Then you write this: "I said PA laws protect Christians from discrimination."

And that, confused one, is the essence of the debate. PA Public Accommodation DOES NOT protect Christians. It violates the hell out of them, as it allows homosexuals to trample all over them.

And why is that true? Because you will not allow for any exceptions regarding business transactions that would directly entangle Christians in your religious rituals. For crying out loud! That's all you need to do. Problem solved, as that would be as close to perfection as we could practically get. Public Accommodation isn't going anywhere. It's established case law in PA and at the federal level. Your suggestion that we abolish it rather than refine it is disingenuous bullshit! While that would be the perfect solution, it is not a politically attainable solution, once again, because you guys and nobody else but you guys oppose that, tooth and nail. Disingenuous bullshit piled atop disingenuous bullshit. You aren't fooling anybody.

We're not going to fight to abolish it. That's a no win. We're going shove it up your asses in civil disobedience as that is the only recourse that is left to us. Knock. Knock. Anybody home?

And you have been told over and over and over again why that is true. Only a sociopath or a retard would fail to
empathize with us or recognize the reality. Hence, your premise is false rendering the rest of your post moot, and you still refuse to acknowledge the truth.

Now read this link, as you guys don't believe or can't grasp what's coming; you're delusional: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/liberal-quest-to-rehabilitate-christians-the-homofascist-rainbow-shirts-are-at-it-again/

The only "right" gays are currently denied is the right to civilly marry. I never claimed PA laws are a right, they are a FACT. (A fact that has withstood constitutional challenge.

If there is no political will to get rid of all of them, then STFU just because in some locations they protect gays from discrimination like the do Christians.

Check? Just like I said.

You homofascists will not allow for any exceptions regarding business transactions that would directly entangle Christians in your religious rituals, and you don't care that this constitutes an unambiguous infringement, not on any civil right/protection, but on an inalienable human right, i.e., a First Amendment civil liberty? So it's not and never has been about equal treatment, but domination. You are not asserting the rule of law, but invoking the rule of the jungle.

Behold, people, the monstrously tyrranical and depraved filth that homofascists are.

Inalienable rights cannot be granted, created, revoked or transferred. They are nonnegotiable. I don't need your permission to have them, and I don't unilaterally owe you anything to have them. You're mad.

Biblical Christians will not obey the state. That's our option.

That leaves you the options to fine, to beat, to jail or to kill. Choose.

Good luck with that.

Just curious...


So these religious exemptions you want to complying with generally applicable law, do they only apply to homosexuals or can other claim a religious exemption also? I mean can someone claim their personal religious beliefs are that the races shouldn't mix and therefore can not provide service to an interracial couple? Or maybe someone who doesn't believe in a Christian marrying a Hindu, can they deny service to interfaith couples?

And who gets to be the test of these religious principals? The individual? The government? If the individual, then the reality is that any individual can claim a religious exemption they just have to mouth the words "it's my religious belief" right? If the government, we now have government sanctioning what is and isn't a valid religious belief? Is that really what you want?



>>>>

Well, first, are the natural rights of man, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, though not exhaustively, inalienable or not? If they are inalienable, which of course they are as obviously no entity can legitimately force another to submit to its demands without force or due process of law. I simply refuse to participate in any pagan rituals. Where's my crime? As the state cannot legitimately order me to work for anyone I don't wish to work for, what is my crime should I choose to work for myself in my own business?

The answers to these questions aren't my problem. I'm not the one asserting the contradiction. Let's face it, busybody statists like homofascists are the one's asserting this bizarre contradiction that confounds the point at which their rights end and mine begin.

Free-association is not a crime under God or under nature. The test is really very simple. Do both parties agree to the transaction?. If the answer is no, no deal; if yes, proceed.

The individual decides, of course, and as long as the individual is not trespassing on the life, the liberty or the property of another, what's the problem?

Sincerely. I don't see a problem.

 

[g5000]

A business in Mass was also fined. Turned out they had received generous tax breaks from the state, and it was the nature of the tax breaks that made them vulnerable. Problem is, you can't discriminate when you're poaching public money. I'm not saying the NY Farm is similar, but we sheeple rarely hear the whole story. Knowing NYS, I suspect the Farm is being F'd in the A.

Same story as the Jim Crowe South. If the haters could whip gays legally, some of them would. We'd see segregated bussing, hospitals and schools.

Indeed.

I'm surprised they aren't hanging STRAIGHTS ONLY signs on their places of business. I suppose they don't because then they would no longer be able to deny their direct lineage to the WHITES ONLY lunch counters.

 

[bodecea]

Fictional stories are not testimony.

Post a SINGLE quote from a verifiable source contained in either of your links. You can't do it, because all the quotes in your sources are from FICTIONAL characters.

You were given plenty. Two whole books, written AT THE TIME in support of slavery ARE quotes.

I give up. You are dishonest as all get out.

Clearly the books you referenced are fictional, they are FICTION. Maybe the rest of the board will tolerate your dishonesty, but I will not.

They are not...they are Primary Sources from the time period.

Yes, and so was Huck Finn



Is your dishonestly borne of your being gay, or are you gay because of your dishonesty?

Huck Finn was written about 20 years after the time period it portrays. However, it IS a primary source on the dialect of that time period and region.

 

[g5000]

Free-association is not a crime under God or under nature. The test is really very simple. Do both parties agree to the transaction?. If the answer is no, no deal; if yes, proceed.

The individual decides, of course, and as long as the individual is not trespassing on the life, the liberty or the property of another, what's the problem?

Sincerely. I don't see a problem.

Some things never change.

You don't see a problem: The very definition of willful blindness.