Jailed Kentucky clerk refusing to back down in gay marriage dispute

[TheOldSchool]

You cantseriously believe you've given similar scenarios

people who placed religion ahead of doing their jobs.
Yes similar scenarios.

Religion, my foot...the dingbat has been married 4 times.

Not after she became a Christian.

really? that's convenient.

It's the whole concept of being forgiven and not committing other sins.

It's not like she can become a Christian then go back in time and undo all her prior sins. She has given her sin to Christ. Now she is to go and sin no more.

How can she repent for her sins of adultrey while still engaging in adultrey against her true husband?

 

[Asclepias]

people who placed religion ahead of doing their jobs.
Yes similar scenarios.

Religion, my foot...the dingbat has been married 4 times.

Not after she became a Christian.

really? that's convenient.

It's the whole concept of being forgiven and not committing other sins.

It's not like she can become a Christian then go back in time and undo all her prior sins. She has given her sin to Christ. Now she is to go and sin no more.

How can she repent for her sins of adultrey while still engaging in adultrey against her true husband?

I bet she has signed marriage papers for divorced people getting married to someone else as well.

 

[GWV5903]

You don't have to accept gay marriage. If you're against it, don't do it. The majority of this country approves of gay marriage.

"You don't have to accept gay marriage" But based on this thread I am a bigot if I don't...

And Mrs. Davis with all her own faults is in jail, she's clearly against it and is being punished for her BELIEFS...

Polls show it has a majority, on this subject I doubt the polls are accurate...

The argument has been they cannot pass their estate onto their partners, simple fix yet you and the supporters want to force it on society...

The LGBT community is 2 to 3 percent of our population and if I don't agree with their position I fall into a hate group category...

I could careless what you or any gay couple does behind closed doors, just as I am certain you do not care what I do behind my doors...

So why do we turn the world upside down when the problem isn't the ability to "marry" it's the ability to pass their estate onto their partner?

 

[Asclepias]

You don't have to accept gay marriage. If you're against it, don't do it. The majority of this country approves of gay marriage.

"You don't have to accept gay marriage" But based on this thread I am a bigot if I don't...

And Mrs. Davis with all her own faults is in jail, she's clearly against it and is being punished for her BELIEFS...

Polls show it has a majority, on this subject I doubt the polls are accurate...

The argument has been they cannot pass their estate onto their partners, simple fix yet you and the supporters want to force it on society...

The LGBT community is 2 to 3 percent of our population and if I don't agree with their position I fall into a hate group category...

I could careless what you or any gay couple does behind closed doors, just as I am certain you do not care what I do behind my doors...

So why do we turn the world upside down when the problem isn't the ability to "marry" it's the ability to pass their estate onto their partner?

No you dont have to accept anything. You do have to do your job while not accepting or condoning the practice.

ac·cept
əkˈsept/
verb

1. 1.
   consent to receive (a thing offered).
   "he accepted a pen as a present"
   synonyms: receive, take, get, gain, obtain, acquire More
   
2. 2.
   believe or come to recognize (an opinion, explanation, etc.) as valid or correct.
   "this tentative explanation came to be accepted by the group"

 

[Carla_Danger]

You don't have to accept gay marriage. If you're against it, don't do it. The majority of this country approves of gay marriage.

"You don't have to accept gay marriage" But based on this thread I am a bigot if I don't...

And Mrs. Davis with all her own faults is in jail, she's clearly against it and is being punished for her BELIEFS...

Polls show it has a majority, on this subject I doubt the polls are accurate...

The argument has been they cannot pass their estate onto their partners, simple fix yet you and the supporters want to force it on society...

The LGBT community is 2 to 3 percent of our population and if I don't agree with their position I fall into a hate group category...

I could careless what you or any gay couple does behind closed doors, just as I am certain you do not care what I do behind my doors...

So why do we turn the world upside down when the problem isn't the ability to "marry" it's the ability to pass their estate onto their partner?

You are free to be a bigot all you like. Kim "pig face" Davis is in jail for not doing the job she is paid to do.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

She IS DUTIFULLY serving her office.

If you had the slightest understanding of what "Duty" means... you'd know that.

And what's more... your IGNORANCE of the word's meaning, is irrelevant to her dutiful service.

Oh well if that's true then, I guess, they would never do anything like oh, I dunno, put her in jail or something like that.

Again Reader... THE PROBLEM rests in what is known as "Relativism".

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this perversion of reason; wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the very existence of objectivity; the element which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.

With truth being essential to trust and, both: truth and trust being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And that a woman who is dutifully carrying out the responsibilities of her office is jailed, is irrefutable evidence of Relativism doing what it must... failing the service of Justice.

The above would-be 'contributor' is saddled with the mental disorder known as Relativism, as is the would-be 'Judge' that sentenced the Clerk to jail for doing her duty. They are simply incapable of understanding; meaning that they are not 'reasonable' people, because they're incapable of the objectivity that is essential to reason soundly.

And that is why people found to be suffering such mental disorder should be removed from the general population... and NEVER be allowed within sight of a voting precinct, let alone to find any SENSE of political power.

In effect, what you witnessed in the imbecile's argument is the fallacious appeal to misleading authority.

"She was arrested, charged and sentenced" by a judge... therefore she is guilty."

The reasoning is so pitifully flawed that it's absurd..., but the poor addle-minded fool is simply incapable of understanding such.

She wasn't doing her job. ...

False... and hysterically so.

.

.

.

Again Reader... THE PROBLEM rests in what is known as "Relativism".

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this perversion of reason; wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the very existence of objectivity; the element in reason which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.

With truth being essential to trust and, both: truth and trust being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And that a woman who is dutifully carrying out the responsibilities of her office is jailed, is irrefutable evidence of Relativism doing what it must... failing the service of Justice.

The above would-be 'contributor' is saddled with the mental disorder known as Relativism, as is the would-be 'Judge' that sentenced the Clerk to jail for doing her duty. They are simply incapable of understanding; meaning that they are not 'reasonable' people, because they're incapable of the objectivity that is essential to sound reason.

And that is why people found to be suffering such mental disorder should be removed from the general population... and NEVER be allowed within sight of a voting precinct, let alone to find any SENSE of political power.

In effect, what you witnessed in the imbecile's argument is the fallacious appeal to misleading authority.

"She was arrested, charged and sentenced" by a judge... therefore she is guilty."

The reasoning is so pitifully flawed that it's absurd..., but the poor addle-minded fool is simply incapable of understanding such.

Part of her job is to issue marriage licenses. She was not issuing marriage licenses and not allowing her office to issue marriage licenses. She was not doing her job. That's not relative.

ROFL!

If you truly are this dense, you should be committed to an asylum, as you lack the means to reason in the slightest; meaning that you're an inevitable threat to everyone around you.

Her job is to issue license for Marriage, within the scope of the laws of her state. The State of Kentucky defines marriage as Nature defines marriage: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

With the Federal Government having screwed up, licensing degeneracy through its wholesale abuse of the judicial system, she could not issue marriage licenses of any kind without potentially violating the civil rights of some. As she waited for the Kentucky Government to straighten out THE LAW!

She is literally the ONLY County Clerk IN the US WHO WAS DOING THEIR JOB.

 

[Asclepias]

Oh well if that's true then, I guess, they would never do anything like oh, I dunno, put her in jail or something like that.

Again Reader... THE PROBLEM rests in what is known as "Relativism".

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this perversion of reason; wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the very existence of objectivity; the element which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.

With truth being essential to trust and, both: truth and trust being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And that a woman who is dutifully carrying out the responsibilities of her office is jailed, is irrefutable evidence of Relativism doing what it must... failing the service of Justice.

The above would-be 'contributor' is saddled with the mental disorder known as Relativism, as is the would-be 'Judge' that sentenced the Clerk to jail for doing her duty. They are simply incapable of understanding; meaning that they are not 'reasonable' people, because they're incapable of the objectivity that is essential to reason soundly.

And that is why people found to be suffering such mental disorder should be removed from the general population... and NEVER be allowed within sight of a voting precinct, let alone to find any SENSE of political power.

In effect, what you witnessed in the imbecile's argument is the fallacious appeal to misleading authority.

"She was arrested, charged and sentenced" by a judge... therefore she is guilty."

The reasoning is so pitifully flawed that it's absurd..., but the poor addle-minded fool is simply incapable of understanding such.

She wasn't doing her job. ...

False... and hysterically so.

.

.

.

Again Reader... THE PROBLEM rests in what is known as "Relativism".

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this perversion of reason; wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the very existence of objectivity; the element in reason which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.

With truth being essential to trust and, both: truth and trust being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And that a woman who is dutifully carrying out the responsibilities of her office is jailed, is irrefutable evidence of Relativism doing what it must... failing the service of Justice.

The above would-be 'contributor' is saddled with the mental disorder known as Relativism, as is the would-be 'Judge' that sentenced the Clerk to jail for doing her duty. They are simply incapable of understanding; meaning that they are not 'reasonable' people, because they're incapable of the objectivity that is essential to sound reason.

And that is why people found to be suffering such mental disorder should be removed from the general population... and NEVER be allowed within sight of a voting precinct, let alone to find any SENSE of political power.

In effect, what you witnessed in the imbecile's argument is the fallacious appeal to misleading authority.

"She was arrested, charged and sentenced" by a judge... therefore she is guilty."

The reasoning is so pitifully flawed that it's absurd..., but the poor addle-minded fool is simply incapable of understanding such.

Part of her job is to issue marriage licenses. She was not issuing marriage licenses and not allowing her office to issue marriage licenses. She was not doing her job. That's not relative.

ROFL!

If you truly are this dense, you should be committed to an asylum, as you lack the means to reason in the slightest; meaning that you're an inevitable threat to everyone around you.

Her job is to issue license for Marriage, within the scope of the laws of her state. The State of Kentucky defines marriage as Nature defines marriage: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

With the Federal Government having screwed up, licensing degeneracy through its wholesale abuse of the judicial system, she could not issue marriage licenses of any kind without potentially violating the civil rights of some. As she waited for the Kentucky Government to straighten out THE LAW!

She is literally the ONLY County Clerk IN the US WHO WAS DOING THEIR JOB.

She is not doing her job. She is in the pokey.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You are free to be a bigot...

The coolest thing about the word 'bigot' is that, the very use of the word when defining another as such, defines the user as precisely THAT, to wit:

Bigot: a person who is bigoted,

Bigoted: having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It wasn't a mortal sin, moron, it was a Venial sin

I have always made sure my sins are original and unique on account if Christ died for my sins and I do not sin he died for nothing...........

You don't know a moral sin fro

You are free to be a bigot...

The coolest thing about the word 'bigot' is that, the very use of the word when defining another as such, defines the user as precisely THAT, to wit:

Bigot: a person who is bigoted,

Bigoted: having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

Yeah, you have to laugh at the ones that hate religion and those that believe while calling people bigots

 

[Carla_Danger]

You are free to be a bigot...

The coolest thing about the word 'bigot' is that, the very use of the word when defining another as such, defines the user as precisely THAT, to wit:

Bigot: a person who is bigoted,

Bigoted: having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

Not tolerating intolerance does not equal being a bigot. You are confused, Ted Haggard.

 

[danielpalos]

there is no bearing false witness to our Bill of Rights in the name of alleged morals.

 

[GWV5903]

You don't have to accept gay marriage. If you're against it, don't do it. The majority of this country approves of gay marriage.

"You don't have to accept gay marriage" But based on this thread I am a bigot if I don't...

And Mrs. Davis with all her own faults is in jail, she's clearly against it and is being punished for her BELIEFS...

Polls show it has a majority, on this subject I doubt the polls are accurate...

The argument has been they cannot pass their estate onto their partners, simple fix yet you and the supporters want to force it on society...

The LGBT community is 2 to 3 percent of our population and if I don't agree with their position I fall into a hate group category...

I could careless what you or any gay couple does behind closed doors, just as I am certain you do not care what I do behind my doors...

So why do we turn the world upside down when the problem isn't the ability to "marry" it's the ability to pass their estate onto their partner?

No you dont have to accept anything. You do have to do your job while not accepting or condoning the practice.

ac·cept
əkˈsept/
verb

1. 1.
   consent to receive (a thing offered).
   "he accepted a pen as a present"
   synonyms: receive, take, get, gain, obtain, acquire More
   
2. 2.
   believe or come to recognize (an opinion, explanation, etc.) as valid or correct.
   "this tentative explanation came to be accepted by the group"

So why do you ignore the supposed issue that was behind their argument?

Did you forget to "accept" this was the basis for their ability to get married?

Is murder "accepted" or "condoned", how about "stealing", then there is "adultery", etc...

What you're really wanting is to be able to do what ever you want with no consequences attached...

Oh and the "You do have to do your job while not accepting or condoning the practice." obviously you have never been an employer or manager of any significance...

And "accepting" the FACT that 2 to 3 percent of our population wants to sleep with the same sex is clearly not the problem, what you have done is FORCE society to "accept" Gay Marriage...

 

[Asclepias]

You don't have to accept gay marriage. If you're against it, don't do it. The majority of this country approves of gay marriage.

"You don't have to accept gay marriage" But based on this thread I am a bigot if I don't...

And Mrs. Davis with all her own faults is in jail, she's clearly against it and is being punished for her BELIEFS...

Polls show it has a majority, on this subject I doubt the polls are accurate...

The argument has been they cannot pass their estate onto their partners, simple fix yet you and the supporters want to force it on society...

The LGBT community is 2 to 3 percent of our population and if I don't agree with their position I fall into a hate group category...

I could careless what you or any gay couple does behind closed doors, just as I am certain you do not care what I do behind my doors...

So why do we turn the world upside down when the problem isn't the ability to "marry" it's the ability to pass their estate onto their partner?

No you dont have to accept anything. You do have to do your job while not accepting or condoning the practice.

ac·cept
əkˈsept/
verb

1. 1.
   consent to receive (a thing offered).
   "he accepted a pen as a present"
   synonyms: receive, take, get, gain, obtain, acquire More
   
2. 2.
   believe or come to recognize (an opinion, explanation, etc.) as valid or correct.
   "this tentative explanation came to be accepted by the group"

So why do you ignore the supposed issue that was behind their argument?

Did you forget to "accept" this was the basis for their ability to get married?

Is murder "accepted" or "condoned", how about "stealing", then there is "adultery", etc...

What you're really wanting is to be able to do what ever you want with no consequences attached...

Oh and the "You do have to do your job while not accepting or condoning the practice." obviously you have never been an employer or manager of any significance...

And "accepting" the FACT that 2 to 3 percent of our population wants to sleep with the same sex is clearly not the problem, what you have done is FORCE society to "accept" Gay Marriage...

Your argument is full of logical fallacies. For example you are using murder and stealing and trying to compare it to something legal like getting married. I cant tell if you think I am dumb or if you are really that dumb.

News flash. Most of society has already accepted the fact that gay people get married. Its the ones that are afraid that they will turn gay because of gay marriage are the ones that remain devolved.

 

[GWV5903]

You don't have to accept gay marriage. If you're against it, don't do it. The majority of this country approves of gay marriage.

"You don't have to accept gay marriage" But based on this thread I am a bigot if I don't...

And Mrs. Davis with all her own faults is in jail, she's clearly against it and is being punished for her BELIEFS...

Polls show it has a majority, on this subject I doubt the polls are accurate...

The argument has been they cannot pass their estate onto their partners, simple fix yet you and the supporters want to force it on society...

The LGBT community is 2 to 3 percent of our population and if I don't agree with their position I fall into a hate group category...

I could careless what you or any gay couple does behind closed doors, just as I am certain you do not care what I do behind my doors...

So why do we turn the world upside down when the problem isn't the ability to "marry" it's the ability to pass their estate onto their partner?

You are free to be a bigot all you like. Kim "pig face" Davis is in jail for not doing the job she is paid to do.

I would have to HATE or not ACCEPT the gay person to be a bigot, which is clearly not the case...

And your caricature is not the truth in this debate and you should know it...

Christ message of forgiveness does not mean you "accept" the sin...

 

[TheOldSchool]

Oh well if that's true then, I guess, they would never do anything like oh, I dunno, put her in jail or something like that.

Again Reader... THE PROBLEM rests in what is known as "Relativism".

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this perversion of reason; wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the very existence of objectivity; the element which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.

With truth being essential to trust and, both: truth and trust being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And that a woman who is dutifully carrying out the responsibilities of her office is jailed, is irrefutable evidence of Relativism doing what it must... failing the service of Justice.

The above would-be 'contributor' is saddled with the mental disorder known as Relativism, as is the would-be 'Judge' that sentenced the Clerk to jail for doing her duty. They are simply incapable of understanding; meaning that they are not 'reasonable' people, because they're incapable of the objectivity that is essential to reason soundly.

And that is why people found to be suffering such mental disorder should be removed from the general population... and NEVER be allowed within sight of a voting precinct, let alone to find any SENSE of political power.

In effect, what you witnessed in the imbecile's argument is the fallacious appeal to misleading authority.

"She was arrested, charged and sentenced" by a judge... therefore she is guilty."

The reasoning is so pitifully flawed that it's absurd..., but the poor addle-minded fool is simply incapable of understanding such.

She wasn't doing her job. ...

False... and hysterically so.

.

.

.

Again Reader... THE PROBLEM rests in what is known as "Relativism".

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this perversion of reason; wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the very existence of objectivity; the element in reason which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.

With truth being essential to trust and, both: truth and trust being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And that a woman who is dutifully carrying out the responsibilities of her office is jailed, is irrefutable evidence of Relativism doing what it must... failing the service of Justice.

The above would-be 'contributor' is saddled with the mental disorder known as Relativism, as is the would-be 'Judge' that sentenced the Clerk to jail for doing her duty. They are simply incapable of understanding; meaning that they are not 'reasonable' people, because they're incapable of the objectivity that is essential to sound reason.

And that is why people found to be suffering such mental disorder should be removed from the general population... and NEVER be allowed within sight of a voting precinct, let alone to find any SENSE of political power.

In effect, what you witnessed in the imbecile's argument is the fallacious appeal to misleading authority.

"She was arrested, charged and sentenced" by a judge... therefore she is guilty."

The reasoning is so pitifully flawed that it's absurd..., but the poor addle-minded fool is simply incapable of understanding such.

Part of her job is to issue marriage licenses. She was not issuing marriage licenses and not allowing her office to issue marriage licenses. She was not doing her job. That's not relative.

ROFL!

If you truly are this dense, you should be committed to an asylum, as you lack the means to reason in the slightest; meaning that you're an inevitable threat to everyone around you.

Her job is to issue license for Marriage, within the scope of the laws of her state. The State of Kentucky defines marriage as Nature defines marriage: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

With the Federal Government having screwed up, licensing degeneracy through its wholesale abuse of the judicial system, she could not issue marriage licenses of any kind without potentially violating the civil rights of some. As she waited for the Kentucky Government to straighten out THE LAW!

She is literally the ONLY County Clerk IN the US WHO WAS DOING THEIR JOB.

And yet she's in jail. Oh well.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Not tolerating intolerance does not equal being a bigot. You are confused, Ted Haggard.

ROFLMNAO! Isn't that precious?

Sadly, for you and your dark reasoning, it quite literally: DOES... but how cool is it that you represent insufficient intellect, to understand that.

What you call "intolerance of degeneracy", is little more than principled reason, which recognizes the catastrophic inevitability of degeneracy. It's the same reasoning which excludes theft, deceit, murder, and all forms of invalid human behavior.

What you do not understand; because, I believe the evidence proves that you're incapable of understanding it; is that there is no potential virtue in tolerating that which cripples individual, social and, by extension, cultural viability. Because to tolerate such, is to be responsible FOR SUCH and there is no potential for a right to cripple yourself, your neighbor, your community or your nation. PERIOD!

 

[Debra K]

You don't have to accept gay marriage. If you're against it, don't do it. The majority of this country approves of gay marriage.

"You don't have to accept gay marriage" But based on this thread I am a bigot if I don't...

And Mrs. Davis with all her own faults is in jail, she's clearly against it and is being punished for her BELIEFS...

Polls show it has a majority, on this subject I doubt the polls are accurate...

The argument has been they cannot pass their estate onto their partners, simple fix yet you and the supporters want to force it on society...

The LGBT community is 2 to 3 percent of our population and if I don't agree with their position I fall into a hate group category...

I could careless what you or any gay couple does behind closed doors, just as I am certain you do not care what I do behind my doors...

So why do we turn the world upside down when the problem isn't the ability to "marry" it's the ability to pass their estate onto their partner?

Same-sex couples have the right to marry the same as opposite-sex couples have the right to marry. No one is forcing you to enter a same-sex marriage. Other people's marriages are none of your business.

Only bigots, because of their animosity toward homosexual persons, seek to abuse the power of the government to impose their bigoted views on all of society. Haven't you been paying attention to all the hate-mongering speech that the anti-gay posters have been spewing on these threads? Minorities are entitled to the same dignities of life enjoyed by the majority. The majority does not have the right to oppress and tyrannize the minority through the operation of our laws.

Why do you seek to oppress? Why can't you just leave them alone and mind your own business?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And yet she's in jail. Oh well.

LMAO~

So to defend against the charge of advancing a fallacious appeal to misleading authority, the Relativist simply returns to advance a fallacious appeal to misleading authority.

ROFLMNAO! BRILLIANT!

Reader, you can NOT make this stuff up!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Same-sex couples have the right to marry the same as opposite-sex couples have the right to marry.

No. ... degenerates literally do NOT have such a right.

And that is because nature defines marriage as the joining of one man to one woman. Nature defined marriage as such, through it's definition of the human being; as it designed humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders. Each specifically designed to join with the other, physically and emotionally; wherein the males enters the body of the female, physically joining with the female forming one sustainable body from two. Which if you're capable of doing the math, IS WHAT MARRIAGE: IS!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Only bigots ... impose their bigoted views on all of society.

You've just defined yourself as a bigot, dumbass.