Is Anyone Else Getting Tired Of The Queer Agenda???

[rdean]

Who says they want to outlaw fire arms. Oh, Wait, You're lying. Got it! I took you seriously for a second. Sorry.

Oops..... how stupid do you look right now rdean???

She was talking about assault weapons, not ALL weapons.

You mean you didn't know?

Consider yourself "schooled".

 

[P@triot]

A very large portion of America is getting tired of the Queer Agenda because of nonsense just like this...

Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies may soon face lawsuits for treating male and female patients according to their biological sex, thanks to a health care rule finalized in May as part of the Affordable Care Act.

If a medical doctor, based on biological evidence, sees a male patient, but the patient claims to be a female, the doctor must treat the patient as a female. Failure to do so could leave the doctor vulnerable to lawsuits, lost federal funding, and federal investigation by the Office of Civil Rights, the HHS arm implementing this policy.

Ok...well ignoring a male problem (say - prostrate cancer) and treating the man as a woman for PMS will end with the patient dying. Which will also end with a lawsuit for the physician. So either way they end up with a law suit.

Rule Requires Doctors To Treat Trans Patients As Pretend Sex

A doctor does not have to ignore medical issues in order to call someone by their proper pronoun.

Wytchy....it helps if you read before commenting. Here is the text again word-for-word. I've highlighted the most critical word in hopes that you might comprehend.

Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies may soon face lawsuits for treating male and female patients according to their biological sex, thanks to a health care rule finalized in May as part of the Affordable Care Act.

The key word is TREATING wytch. Not calling. TREATING. Incidentally, their "proper pronoun" is their biological gender. Convincing someone with a severe mental disorder that their distorted views are correct is extremely harmful to the person suffering from the disorder and to society. Only sick libtard homosexuals with a disturbing agenda deny that reality.

Treating has more than one meaning. It doesn't mean that a doctor must ignore the testicular cancer of a pre-op male to female transgendered person because they want to be identified as she. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

LMAO!!!! Now you're going to redefine the meaning of "treating"?!? Good grief. You people are the most desperate and bizarre creatures in the world. Words have no meaning to liberals. They will ignore everything that's written and just put their own bizarre spin on it.

Only an idiot wouldn't be able to admit they commented before reading.

 

[P@triot]

So clearly Ted Bundy had the right to rape and murder women since he did, uh? And Omar Mateen had the right to shoot and kill 49 people and shoot and injury 53 other, since he did.

When did the SCOTUS rule that Ted Bundy had a right to rape and murder?

They didn't. But considering you're completely clueless about what the Supreme Court does and any of their other rulings, it doesn't surprise me at all that you don't know that.

By the way - mentioning those criminals was just proof that criminal activity occurs all the time in the U.S. and that the occurrences of those crimes do not make them ok or legal. Just like past criminal actions by the Supreme Court (such as the "Love" ruling) does not make current criminal actions by the Supreme Court ok.

Now, of course, you realized that already. But you're so desperate and have no response to that undeniable reality that you have to play dumb and say nonsensical stuff. Just so you know wytchy- your's always going to have this dillema because you start with a false premise built on irrational emotion. That's why you're always frustrated in these threads and why you have to resort to nonsensical comments like "when did SCOTUS rule on the right to rape and murder". Life would be a lot simpler for you if you formed your positions based on facts and rational thought. Otherwise, it's a never ending uphill battle that just makes you look foolish. Just saying...

 

[P@triot]

I don't see anyone laughing at me.

Everybody is laughing at you junior....

Now tell us again how I am the "only" one who understands that the ruling was unconstitutional. That's my favorite part. It's the easiest to disprove considering Supreme Court Justices cited the unconstitutionality in their dissent.

"Everybody" being the voices in Puppy's head that says he's the authority and not the SCOTUS.

My sad, lost, and confused dear - Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito are not in my head. They are actual Supreme Court Justices (Scalia passing away a few months ago - God rest his soul). Don't worry - after your past insane comments about the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court, nobody here expected you to know that. We have very low expectations for you and your posts.

 

[P@triot]

Who says they want to outlaw fire arms. Oh, Wait, You're lying. Got it! I took you seriously for a second. Sorry.

Oops..... how stupid do you look right now rdean???

She was talking about assault weapons, not ALL weapons.

You mean you didn't know?

Consider yourself "schooled".

Yeah....and Barack Obama wasn't talking about private businesses when he said "you didn't build that". We know how you sad and very desperate libtards back track 24x7. It's amazing how you people say things that you never really meant to say. It's almost like none of you learned to master the English language in grade school. Which doesn't really surprise any of us considering the very limited intellect of the libtard.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't see anyone laughing at me.

Everybody is laughing at you junior....

Now tell us again how I am the "only" one who understands that the ruling was unconstitutional. That's my favorite part. It's the easiest to disprove considering Supreme Court Justices cited the unconstitutionality in their dissent.

"Everybody" being the voices in Puppy's head that says he's the authority and not the SCOTUS.

My sad, lost, and confused dear - Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito are not in my head. They are actual Supreme Court Justices (Scalia passing away a few months ago - God rest his soul)..

You are indeed confused.

Justice Scalia was one of the Justices who voted to overturn State marriage laws in Turner v. Safely.

You have provided evidence that 4 Supreme Court justices didn't agree with the decision in Obergefell. Not one of those justices ever claimed that the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to overturn an unconstitutional State law.

How many Supreme Court justices have voted to overturn State's marriage laws?

5 in Obergefell
8 in Zablocki
9 in Loving
9 in Turner

4 cases in which the Supreme Court overturned state laws and regulations on marriage- with a total of 31 Supreme Court Justices all voting to overturn marriage laws as unconsitutional.

Meanwhile you still haven't shown us a single Justice who says that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to overturn an unconstitutional state marriage law.

 

[P@triot]

Meanwhile you still haven't shown us a single Justice who says that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to overturn an unconstitutional state marriage law.

I just did - when I posted Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion in my previous response to you. As you always do, your absurd response is to close your eyes when I point to the sun as proof of the sun's existence and scream "I don't see anything".

You were humiliated junior. I exposed your astounding ignorance on this issue. Scalia (as well as the other two) made it abundantly clear that the ruling was 100% unconstitutional. You can pretend like you didn't see it, but everyone else here did and they are all laughing at you.

 

[Syriusly]

Meanwhile you still haven't shown us a single Justice who says that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to overturn an unconstitutional state marriage law.

So you agree with Scalia that it is perfectly Constitutional for the Supreme Court to overturn a State marriage law- just as he voted in Turner v. Safely?

 

[Seawytch]

A very large portion of America is getting tired of the Queer Agenda because of nonsense just like this...

Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies may soon face lawsuits for treating male and female patients according to their biological sex, thanks to a health care rule finalized in May as part of the Affordable Care Act.

If a medical doctor, based on biological evidence, sees a male patient, but the patient claims to be a female, the doctor must treat the patient as a female. Failure to do so could leave the doctor vulnerable to lawsuits, lost federal funding, and federal investigation by the Office of Civil Rights, the HHS arm implementing this policy.

Ok...well ignoring a male problem (say - prostrate cancer) and treating the man as a woman for PMS will end with the patient dying. Which will also end with a lawsuit for the physician. So either way they end up with a law suit.

Rule Requires Doctors To Treat Trans Patients As Pretend Sex

A doctor does not have to ignore medical issues in order to call someone by their proper pronoun.

Wytchy....it helps if you read before commenting. Here is the text again word-for-word. I've highlighted the most critical word in hopes that you might comprehend.

Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies may soon face lawsuits for treating male and female patients according to their biological sex, thanks to a health care rule finalized in May as part of the Affordable Care Act.

The key word is TREATING wytch. Not calling. TREATING. Incidentally, their "proper pronoun" is their biological gender. Convincing someone with a severe mental disorder that their distorted views are correct is extremely harmful to the person suffering from the disorder and to society. Only sick libtard homosexuals with a disturbing agenda deny that reality.

Treating has more than one meaning. It doesn't mean that a doctor must ignore the testicular cancer of a pre-op male to female transgendered person because they want to be identified as she. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

LMAO!!!! Now you're going to redefine the meaning of "treating"?!? Good grief. You people are the most desperate and bizarre creatures in the world. Words have no meaning to liberals. They will ignore everything that's written and just put their own bizarre spin on it.

Only an idiot wouldn't be able to admit they commented before reading.

It's not me that has more than one definition, little puppy, it's Merriam-Webster.

Definition of TREAT

You're welcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Seawytch]

So clearly Ted Bundy had the right to rape and murder women since he did, uh? And Omar Mateen had the right to shoot and kill 49 people and shoot and injury 53 other, since he did.

When did the SCOTUS rule that Ted Bundy had a right to rape and murder?

They didn't. But considering you're completely clueless about what the Supreme Court does and any of their other rulings, it doesn't surprise me at all that you don't know that.

By the way - mentioning those criminals was just proof that criminal activity occurs all the time in the U.S. and that the occurrences of those crimes do not make them ok or legal. Just like past criminal actions by the Supreme Court (such as the "Love" ruling) does not make current criminal actions by the Supreme Court ok.

Now, of course, you realized that already. But you're so desperate and have no response to that undeniable reality that you have to play dumb and say nonsensical stuff. Just so you know wytchy- your's always going to have this dillema because you start with a false premise built on irrational emotion. That's why you're always frustrated in these threads and why you have to resort to nonsensical comments like "when did SCOTUS rule on the right to rape and murder". Life would be a lot simpler for you if you formed your positions based on facts and rational thought. Otherwise, it's a never ending uphill battle that just makes you look foolish. Just saying...

So you're admitting your analogy was both stupid and wrong. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[P@triot]

A very large portion of America is getting tired of the Queer Agenda because of nonsense just like this...

Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies may soon face lawsuits for treating male and female patients according to their biological sex, thanks to a health care rule finalized in May as part of the Affordable Care Act.

If a medical doctor, based on biological evidence, sees a male patient, but the patient claims to be a female, the doctor must treat the patient as a female. Failure to do so could leave the doctor vulnerable to lawsuits, lost federal funding, and federal investigation by the Office of Civil Rights, the HHS arm implementing this policy.

Ok...well ignoring a male problem (say - prostrate cancer) and treating the man as a woman for PMS will end with the patient dying. Which will also end with a lawsuit for the physician. So either way they end up with a law suit.

Rule Requires Doctors To Treat Trans Patients As Pretend Sex

A doctor does not have to ignore medical issues in order to call someone by their proper pronoun.

Wytchy....it helps if you read before commenting. Here is the text again word-for-word. I've highlighted the most critical word in hopes that you might comprehend.

Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies may soon face lawsuits for treating male and female patients according to their biological sex, thanks to a health care rule finalized in May as part of the Affordable Care Act.

The key word is TREATING wytch. Not calling. TREATING. Incidentally, their "proper pronoun" is their biological gender. Convincing someone with a severe mental disorder that their distorted views are correct is extremely harmful to the person suffering from the disorder and to society. Only sick libtard homosexuals with a disturbing agenda deny that reality.

Treating has more than one meaning. It doesn't mean that a doctor must ignore the testicular cancer of a pre-op male to female transgendered person because they want to be identified as she. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

LMAO!!!! Now you're going to redefine the meaning of "treating"?!? Good grief. You people are the most desperate and bizarre creatures in the world. Words have no meaning to liberals. They will ignore everything that's written and just put their own bizarre spin on it.

Only an idiot wouldn't be able to admit they commented before reading.

It's not me that has more than one definition, little puppy, it's Merriam-Webster.

Definition of TREAT

You're welcome.

Um....wytchy.....it's safe to say that nobody interpreted the article to mean "but a friend a meal" or "hand a dog a snack"

 

[P@triot]

So clearly Ted Bundy had the right to rape and murder women since he did, uh? And Omar Mateen had the right to shoot and kill 49 people and shoot and injury 53 other, since he did.

When did the SCOTUS rule that Ted Bundy had a right to rape and murder?

They didn't. But considering you're completely clueless about what the Supreme Court does and any of their other rulings, it doesn't surprise me at all that you don't know that.

By the way - mentioning those criminals was just proof that criminal activity occurs all the time in the U.S. and that the occurrences of those crimes do not make them ok or legal. Just like past criminal actions by the Supreme Court (such as the "Love" ruling) does not make current criminal actions by the Supreme Court ok.

Now, of course, you realized that already. But you're so desperate and have no response to that undeniable reality that you have to play dumb and say nonsensical stuff. Just so you know wytchy- your's always going to have this dillema because you start with a false premise built on irrational emotion. That's why you're always frustrated in these threads and why you have to resort to nonsensical comments like "when did SCOTUS rule on the right to rape and murder". Life would be a lot simpler for you if you formed your positions based on facts and rational thought. Otherwise, it's a never ending uphill battle that just makes you look foolish. Just saying...

So you're admitting your analogy was both stupid and wrong. Thanks!

No - you're admitting that it proved how stupid you and syriusly(dumb) are. That's why it bothers you so much. You love the false narrative that if something happens, it must be legal. When I point out the obvious, you're left with nothing. And then you get angry and desperate.

 

[Syriusly]

So clearly Ted Bundy had the right to rape and murder women since he did, uh? And Omar Mateen had the right to shoot and kill 49 people and shoot and injury 53 other, since he did.

When did the SCOTUS rule that Ted Bundy had a right to rape and murder?

They didn't. But considering you're completely clueless about what the Supreme Court does and any of their other rulings, it doesn't surprise me at all that you don't know that.

By the way - mentioning those criminals was just proof that criminal activity occurs all the time in the U.S. and that the occurrences of those crimes do not make them ok or legal. Just like past criminal actions by the Supreme Court (such as the "Love" ruling) does not make current criminal actions by the Supreme Court ok.

Now, of course, you realized that already. But you're so desperate and have no response to that undeniable reality that you have to play dumb and say nonsensical stuff. Just so you know wytchy- your's always going to have this dillema because you start with a false premise built on irrational emotion. That's why you're always frustrated in these threads and why you have to resort to nonsensical comments like "when did SCOTUS rule on the right to rape and murder". Life would be a lot simpler for you if you formed your positions based on facts and rational thought. Otherwise, it's a never ending uphill battle that just makes you look foolish. Just saying...

So you're admitting your analogy was both stupid and wrong. Thanks!

No - you're admitting that it proved how stupid you and syriusly(dumb) are. That's why it bothers you so much. You love the false narrative that if something happens, it must be legal. When I point out the obvious, you're left with nothing. And then you get angry and desperate.

You keep claiming since you declare something to be illegal it must be illegal- which is why it bothers you so much that virtually no one agrees with you.

You claim that despite the Supreme Court overturning unconstitutional marriage laws for over 50 years that it has no authority to do so- but the states recognize the authority of the Supreme Court over and over.

You still haven't found a single Supreme Court justice who has supported your position that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to overturn unconstitutional laws.

Even Justice Scalia, your beloved, voted to overturn a state marriage regulation- because he recognized the authority of the Supreme Court.

But you- the lone contrarian continue to claim that your knowledge of the Constitution is superior to everyone's- including Justice Scalia's.

 

[mgh80]

I couldn't care less what adults do in their bedroom-doesn't affect me at all. Some people need to stop worrying about who other people are screwing-and worry about who they're screwing.

I don't want big/overreaching government, and yes that includes in anybody's bedroom.

 

[Seawytch]

A doctor does not have to ignore medical issues in order to call someone by their proper pronoun.

Wytchy....it helps if you read before commenting. Here is the text again word-for-word. I've highlighted the most critical word in hopes that you might comprehend.

Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies may soon face lawsuits for treating male and female patients according to their biological sex, thanks to a health care rule finalized in May as part of the Affordable Care Act.

The key word is TREATING wytch. Not calling. TREATING. Incidentally, their "proper pronoun" is their biological gender. Convincing someone with a severe mental disorder that their distorted views are correct is extremely harmful to the person suffering from the disorder and to society. Only sick libtard homosexuals with a disturbing agenda deny that reality.

Treating has more than one meaning. It doesn't mean that a doctor must ignore the testicular cancer of a pre-op male to female transgendered person because they want to be identified as she. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

LMAO!!!! Now you're going to redefine the meaning of "treating"?!? Good grief. You people are the most desperate and bizarre creatures in the world. Words have no meaning to liberals. They will ignore everything that's written and just put their own bizarre spin on it.

Only an idiot wouldn't be able to admit they commented before reading.

It's not me that has more than one definition, little puppy, it's Merriam-Webster.

Definition of TREAT

You're welcome.

Um....wytchy.....it's safe to say that nobody interpreted the article to mean "but a friend a meal" or "hand a dog a snack"

I'd normally think "how cute, the poster is being intentionally obtuse"...but in your case, I know it's not intentional.


Treat:

to deal with or think about (something) especially in a particular way

Glad I could help you out.

 

[P@triot]

You still haven't found a single Supreme Court justice who has supported your position that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to overturn unconstitutional laws.

I've tried to explain to you over and over that rejecting unconstitutional laws is the responsibility of the Supreme Court. But since you've never read the Constitution, you have no idea what is and what is not, unconstitutional.

 

[P@triot]

I'd normally think "how cute, the poster is being intentionally obtuse"...but in your case, I know it's not intentional.
Treat: to deal with or think about (something) especially in a particular way

Bingo! An action. To deal with. So libtards just wrote another astoundingly ignorant law that says physicians must ignore the prostrate cance of a man and treat him for PMS if his mental disorder causes him to tell everyone that he is a woman.

I feel like your attorney wytchy. I have to explain every law to you - from the Constitution all the way down to local statutes. I should start billing you $400 an hour.

 

[rightwinger]

I'd normally think "how cute, the poster is being intentionally obtuse"...but in your case, I know it's not intentional.
Treat: to deal with or think about (something) especially in a particular way

Bingo! An action. To deal with. So libtards just wrote another astoundingly ignorant law that says physicians must ignore the prostrate cance of a man and treat him for PMS if his mental disorder causes him to tell everyone that he is a woman.

I feel like your attorney wytchy. I have to explain every law to you - from the Constitution all the way down to local statutes. I should start billing you $400 an hour.

You wouldn't happen to have a copy of that "law" would you?

 

[P@triot]

I'd normally think "how cute, the poster is being intentionally obtuse"...but in your case, I know it's not intentional.
Treat: to deal with or think about (something) especially in a particular way

Bingo! An action. To deal with. So libtards just wrote another astoundingly ignorant law that says physicians must ignore the prostrate cance of a man and treat him for PMS if his mental disorder causes him to tell everyone that he is a woman.

I feel like your attorney wytchy. I have to explain every law to you - from the Constitution all the way down to local statutes. I should start billing you $400 an hour.

You wouldn't happen to have a copy of that "law" would you?

Yeah. It's posted right here in this thread.

 

[rightwinger]

A very large portion of America is getting tired of the Queer Agenda because of nonsense just like this...

Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies may soon face lawsuits for treating male and female patients according to their biological sex, thanks to a health care rule finalized in May as part of the Affordable Care Act.

If a medical doctor, based on biological evidence, sees a male patient, but the patient claims to be a female, the doctor must treat the patient as a female. Failure to do so could leave the doctor vulnerable to lawsuits, lost federal funding, and federal investigation by the Office of Civil Rights, the HHS arm implementing this policy.

Ok...well ignoring a male problem (say - prostrate cancer) and treating the man as a woman for PMS will end with the patient dying. Which will also end with a lawsuit for the physician. So either way they end up with a law suit.

Rule Requires Doctors To Treat Trans Patients As Pretend Sex

More hysterical rightwing misinterpretation of the law

Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act