Love "wins"

[mdk]

Your honor - MDK believes his disturbing homosexual deviance should be accepted and embraced by society but not the disturbing sexual deviance of others because he's a whiny little *****.

Judge: MDK's a ****'n idiot. But the world knew that already. Marriage is between one man and one woman. MDK will have to cry like a woman while performing sexual acts like a woman.

It sure doesn't seem like anybody is forcing you to accept and/or embrace homosexual deviance, drama queen. Save all all your sullen tears and ship them to Southern California. They could use the drought relief.

 

[Silhouette]

Scenario #1
The standing is children's rights to both a mother and father in marriage. The case is that they were barred from representation at a contract revision whose end result was to enact provisions that cause a detriment to themselves in a legally-binding way. Which is not allowed when children are at the end of that whip. Consult the Infant Doctrine and contracts for details.

Scenario #2
Judge Moore of Alabama is held to the fire and he appeals all the way to the USSC on behalf of himself and his state. Or the AG of any state joins him. The standing is his defense of his actions with respect to abiding by or not abiding by Obergefell. The case is any number of things, including scenario #1 and Alabama's obligation to look out for its children. But let's say the case here could be that two Justices were not impartial. They displayed bias well before the case was heard. And they did so publicly. The case law supporting is Capterton v Massey Coal (2009 USSC) where the broad understanding there is that nobody sitting in judgment of a case may display bias without recusing themselves..

Scenario #3
A polygamist (polyamorist) group wishes to marry but are barred when they apply for a license. There's the standing: discrimination based on sexual orientation. The case is that because on pages 7-8 in Obergefell, it says the case was about sexual orientation, and the larger scope was that states cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation (therefore). The polygamists challenge that both homosexuality and polyamory were repugnant to the majority. Yet just one of them gets special privilege to marry while the other doesn't. The 14th demands all sexual orientations repugnant to the majority may marry. Not just some.

*******
Scenario #3 would end with the Court reluctantly telling all 50 states that polygamists, incest and any other conceivable adult combination of sexual orientation must be allowed to marry (and involve children). Marrying comes with several perks that also cannot be denied arbitrarily. One of those is the right to adopt (and recently, without discrimination based on sexual orientation...any of them...).

So children ARE intimately involved in this issue of law. And I believe because of them, the Court will have to instead overturn Obergefell because it will realize its mistake of allowing just some of their favorite, but not other repugnant sexual orientations to marry. Obergefell will implode right before our eyes. If you think the Court is going to force 50 states to accept polygamy and incest marriage based on a technicality It cannot make excuses not to enforce, you're high bro. The statewide rebellion at such an announcement would create EPIC standing of the type that would make your head spin.

The case would literally be "the 300 million vs the 5 of the USSC". Our nation would be on the verge of anarchy. And that's something the Court would not push to happen. Enjoy Obergefell while you can.

The outfall will be that the Court will probably make states recognize the marriages already performed; but that in states where gay marriage is not allowed, or is reversed in the future, gays may not marry anymore. It will be civil unions or nothing. Children are way too important of a consideration. Civil unions of homosexuals, incest or polyamorists will come with specific terms in most states where they don't include the right to adopt children. Over time, most gay marriages will end in divorce since promiscuity is a given in the homosexual CULTure...even if it isn't PC to say so. So in the end, those "grandfathered" "marriages" will die out. The only places where gays can then be married are in states where the majority has said "this is OK"; providing their majorities haven't had a change of heart after the "experiment" involving children has revealed its uglier side.

 

[mdk]

Scenario #1
The standing is children's rights to both a mother and father in marriage. The case is that they were barred from representation at a contract revision whose end result was to enact provisions that cause a detriment to themselves in a legally-binding way. Which is not allowed when children are at the end of that whip. Consult the Infant Doctrine and contracts for details.

Scenario #2
Judge Moore of Alabama is held to the fire and he appeals all the way to the USSC on behalf of himself and his state. Or the AG of any state joins him. The standing is his defense of his actions with respect to abiding by or not abiding by Obergefell. The case is any number of things, including scenario #1 and Alabama's obligation to look out for its children. But let's say the case here could be that two Justices were not impartial. They displayed bias well before the case was heard. And they did so publicly. The case law supporting is Capterton v Massey Coal (2009 USSC) where the broad understanding there is that nobody sitting in judgment of a case may display bias without recusing themselves..

Scenario #3
A polygamist (polyamorist) group wishes to marry but are barred when they apply for a license. There's the standing: discrimination based on sexual orientation. The case is that because on pages 7-8 in Obergefell, it says the case was about sexual orientation, and the larger scope was that states cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation (therefore). The polygamists challenge that both homosexuality and polyamory were repugnant to the majority. Yet just one of them gets special privilege to marry while the other doesn't. The 14th demands all sexual orientations repugnant to the majority may marry. Not just some.

*******
Scenario #3 would end with the Court reluctantly telling all 50 states that polygamists, incest and any other conceivable adult combination of sexual orientation must be allowed to marry (and involve children). Because marrying comes with several perks that also cannot be denied arbitrarily. One of those is the right to adopt.

So children ARE intimately involved in this issue of law. And I believe because of them, the Cour will have to instead overturn Obergefell because it will realize its mistake of allowing just some of their favorite, but not other repugnant sexual orientations to marry. Obergefell will implode right before our eyes.

Scenarios from your imagination and throwing legal shit aganist the wall isn't standing, it's rambling.

 

[P@triot]

Your honor - MDK believes his disturbing homosexual deviance should be accepted and embraced by society but not the disturbing sexual deviance of others because he's a whiny little *****.

Judge: MDK's a ****'n idiot. But the world knew that already. Marriage is between one man and one woman. MDK will have to cry like a woman while performing sexual acts like a woman.

It sure doesn't seem like anybody is forcing you to accept and/or embrace homosexual deviance, drama queen. Save all all your sullen tears and ship them to Southern California. They could use the drought relief.

Every bakery that was forced to participate in a homosexual event would vehemently disagree with you. Every facility that was forced to host a homosexual event would vehemently disagree with you. Every person with an ounce of common sense does disagree with you.

 

[mdk]

Your honor - MDK believes his disturbing homosexual deviance should be accepted and embraced by society but not the disturbing sexual deviance of others because he's a whiny little *****.

Judge: MDK's a ****'n idiot. But the world knew that already. Marriage is between one man and one woman. MDK will have to cry like a woman while performing sexual acts like a woman.

It sure doesn't seem like anybody is forcing you to accept and/or embrace homosexual deviance, drama queen. Save all all your sullen tears and ship them to Southern California. They could use the drought relief.

Every bakery that was forced to participate in a homosexual event would vehemently disagree with you. Every facility that was forced to host a homosexual event would vehemently disagree with you. Every person with an ounce of common sense does disagree with you.

I asked how you were being forced to accept or embrace queers? As I suspected, you're not.

Besides, I think public accommodation laws should curtailed. The government should not force people to do business with someone against their wishes. Let the fee market decide if people want to do business with those that refuse to serve X, Y, or Z.

 

[P@triot]

Besides, I think public accommodation laws should curtailed. The government should not force people to do business with someone against their wishes. Let the fee market decide if people want to do business with those that refuse to serve X, Y, or Z.

 

[Silhouette]

Besides, I think public accommodation laws should curtailed. The government should not force people to do business with someone against their wishes. Let the fee market decide if people want to do business with those that refuse to serve X, Y, or Z.

He's saying that now because he knows where this is going in the Courts. He doesn't want the legal battery of Christians like the Kleins to give them standing (a defense) to walk the issue before the US Supreme Court. Because when they do, the right of them to politely refuse service will be upheld. And then the nature of religion vs deviant sex behaviors will have to be dissected under a microscope in an official USSC Opinion. That's the last thing mdk wants.

But it's going to happen. That ship has already sailed...or is sailing as we speak. Those two scheming lesbians who brought the hurt on the Kleins on purpose, just launched a missile with a boomerang attached to it.

 

[mdk]

Besides, I think public accommodation laws should curtailed. The government should not force people to do business with someone against their wishes. Let the fee market decide if people want to do business with those that refuse to serve X, Y, or Z.

He's saying that now because he knows where this is going in the Courts. He doesn't want the legal battery of Christians like the Kleins to give them standing (a defense) to walk the issue before the US Supreme Court. Because when they do, the right of them to politely refuse service will be upheld. And then the nature of religion vs deviant sex behaviors will have to be dissected under a microscope in an official USSC Opinion. That's the last thing mdk wants.

But it's going to happen. That ship has already sailed...or is sailing as we speak. Those two scheming lesbians who brought the hurt on the Kleins on purpose, just launched a missile with a boomerang attached to it.

Now!? lol. That has been my position for years. Sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[Seawytch]

Your honor - MDK believes his disturbing homosexual deviance should be accepted and embraced by society but not the disturbing sexual deviance of others because he's a whiny little *****.

Judge: MDK's a ****'n idiot. But the world knew that already. Marriage is between one man and one woman. MDK will have to cry like a woman while performing sexual acts like a woman.

It sure doesn't seem like anybody is forcing you to accept and/or embrace homosexual deviance, drama queen. Save all all your sullen tears and ship them to Southern California. They could use the drought relief.

Every bakery that was forced to participate in a homosexual event would vehemently disagree with you. Every facility that was forced to host a homosexual event would vehemently disagree with you. Every person with an ounce of common sense does disagree with you.

I asked how you were being forced to accept or embrace queers? As I suspected, you're not.

Besides, I think public accommodation laws should curtailed. The government should not force people to do business with someone against their wishes. Let the fee market decide if people want to do business with those that refuse to serve X, Y, or Z.

That'd be fine too...but for now, if I'm forced, by law, to serve the ignorant, bigoted Christian...he should have to, by law, serve me.

And what about when there is no "free market"? What if the only honey dipper in my town (and there is only one) refuses to pump the lezzie septic tank?

 

[Seawytch]

Your honor - MDK believes his disturbing homosexual deviance should be accepted and embraced by society but not the disturbing sexual deviance of others because he's a whiny little *****.

Judge: MDK's a ****'n idiot. But the world knew that already. Marriage is between one man and one woman. MDK will have to cry like a woman while performing sexual acts like a woman.

It sure doesn't seem like anybody is forcing you to accept and/or embrace homosexual deviance, drama queen. Save all all your sullen tears and ship them to Southern California. They could use the drought relief.

All of CA could benefit with the amount of whining "patriot" does.

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah, but your a doodie head. (For the "smart" Trump voter: Intentional misspelling of you're)

While you are a hateful little facist who believes the world should be turned upside down for any of your sexual deviance but not for anyone else.

Everyone is seeing the real ***** Puppy right now and they see someone who has spent years lying on USMB. All of your bullshit about "love wins" has been exposed. People see you for who you really are now ***** Puppy and nobody likes what they see.

Awww, what a cute little Trumpbot you are. You even do the "I know you are but what am I" thing he does. Totes adorbs.

 

[mdk]

Your honor - MDK believes his disturbing homosexual deviance should be accepted and embraced by society but not the disturbing sexual deviance of others because he's a whiny little *****.

Judge: MDK's a ****'n idiot. But the world knew that already. Marriage is between one man and one woman. MDK will have to cry like a woman while performing sexual acts like a woman.

It sure doesn't seem like anybody is forcing you to accept and/or embrace homosexual deviance, drama queen. Save all all your sullen tears and ship them to Southern California. They could use the drought relief.

Every bakery that was forced to participate in a homosexual event would vehemently disagree with you. Every facility that was forced to host a homosexual event would vehemently disagree with you. Every person with an ounce of common sense does disagree with you.

I asked how you were being forced to accept or embrace queers? As I suspected, you're not.

Besides, I think public accommodation laws should curtailed. The government should not force people to do business with someone against their wishes. Let the fee market decide if people want to do business with those that refuse to serve X, Y, or Z.

That'd be fine too...but for now, if I'm forced, by law, to serve the ignorant, bigoted Christian...he should have to, by law, serve me.

And what about when there is no "free market"? What if the only honey dipper in my town (and there is only one) refuses to pump the lezzie septic tank?

You find someone else to do it. I'll tell you what: If that scenario ever comes to pass you let me know and I'll gladly pay the services for another contractor to pump your shit. lol

 

[Seawytch]

The requirement ***** Puppy is that they be non familial consenting adults. Gay couples marrying meet those requirements.

Hey stupid - the requirement was one man and one woman. You changed it for your own agenda. So you've now illustrated your own hypocrisy ***** Puppy. You'll rewrite marriage for your own disturbed deviance but not for somebody else. So much for your "love wins" bullshit, uh?

Hey, non serving *****, the requirement was one black man and one black woman or one white woman and one white man...until it wasn't...bigots whined about that too.

So here is ***** Puppy moving the goalposts.

You make no sense ***** Puppy. You're basically admitting that the requirements have changed over and over. So why can't they change yet again for this mom and son? Because you're a selfish hypocrite?

Yes, they have. They aren't going to change to include; incest, polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia or any of your slippery slope fantasies. But feel free to keep sniveling about gays...who ARE marrying and will continue to marry. No amount of "patriot" pussyaching will change that.

 

[Moonglow]

Your honor - MDK believes his disturbing homosexual deviance should be accepted and embraced by society but not the disturbing sexual deviance of others because he's a whiny little *****.

Judge: MDK's a ****'n idiot. But the world knew that already. Marriage is between one man and one woman. MDK will have to cry like a woman while performing sexual acts like a woman.

It sure doesn't seem like anybody is forcing you to accept and/or embrace homosexual deviance, drama queen. Save all all your sullen tears and ship them to Southern California. They could use the drought relief.

Every bakery that was forced to participate in a homosexual event would vehemently disagree with you. Every facility that was forced to host a homosexual event would vehemently disagree with you. Every person with an ounce of common sense does disagree with you.

I asked how you were being forced to accept or embrace queers? As I suspected, you're not.

Besides, I think public accommodation laws should curtailed. The government should not force people to do business with someone against their wishes. Let the fee market decide if people want to do business with those that refuse to serve X, Y, or Z.

That'd be fine too...but for now, if I'm forced, by law, to serve the ignorant, bigoted Christian...he should have to, by law, serve me.

And what about when there is no "free market"? What if the only honey dipper in my town (and there is only one) refuses to pump the lezzie septic tank?

You find someone else to do it. I'll tell you what: If that scenario ever comes to pass you let me know and I'll gladly pay the services for another contractor to pump your shit. lol

Is that a sexual entendre?

 

[Seawytch]

It's really not. There is a huge difference between "occurring" and "legal". No worries though my friend - nobody expects a liberal to grasp this basic concept. We've all come to expect less out of that side of the aisle

The huge difference is you can't do shit about it. Keep pretending, though. It amuses me when irrelevant whiners think otherwise.

Bwahahahaha! There are few things funnier than scared-shitless liberals attempting to display false bravado.

Pssst...junior....alcohol was legal, then made illegal, then made legal again. Shit can change in the blink of an eye. A couple of Supreme Court judges appointed by anyone not a bat-shit crazy liberal could change it all. And you know it too. Which is why you are acting scared shitless right now.

Ah...a glimpse into *****'s fantasies. Gays aren't going to be "unmarried"....but it's your spank bank.

***** Puppy is clearly scared shitless as well. Love it!

Since ***** Puppy is you, what are you afraid of (besides Muslims, of course)?

 

[Moonglow]

The requirement ***** Puppy is that they be non familial consenting adults. Gay couples marrying meet those requirements.

Hey stupid - the requirement was one man and one woman. You changed it for your own agenda. So you've now illustrated your own hypocrisy ***** Puppy. You'll rewrite marriage for your own disturbed deviance but not for somebody else. So much for your "love wins" bullshit, uh?

Hey, non serving *****, the requirement was one black man and one black woman or one white woman and one white man...until it wasn't...bigots whined about that too.

So here is ***** Puppy moving the goalposts.

You make no sense ***** Puppy. You're basically admitting that the requirements have changed over and over. So why can't they change yet again for this mom and son? Because you're a selfish hypocrite?

Yes, they have. They aren't going to change to include; incest, polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia or any of your slippery slope fantasies. But feel free to keep sniveling about gays...who ARE marrying and will continue to marry. No amount of "patriot" pussyaching will change that.

I can just imagine that he gets so furious about his deviant paranoia that he leaves tread marks while setting naked on the couch typing...

 

[P@triot]

That'd be fine too...but for now, if I'm forced, by law, to serve the ignorant, bigoted Christian...he should have to, by law, serve me.

You're "forced by law" because of the ignorant ideology you embrace. You're side of the aisle are the idiots that embrace communism and force. We've preached the dangers of it for centuries and you people were too stupid to listen. Now it's coming back to bite you in the ass. Just like the "missile with a boomerang attached" that Silhouette cited.

And what about when there is no "free market"? What if the only honey dipper in my town (and there is only one) refuses to pump the lezzie septic tank?

Then you get to start your own business! You have a perfect opportunity to fill a need/demand in the free market and open a "lezzie septic tank" company. All of the "lizzie's" get the service they need and you get to become fabulously wealthy! It's a win-win. See how that works Puppy? Kind of sad that you need someone to explain to you how the free market works though.

 

[P@triot]

Besides, I think public accommodation laws should curtailed. The government should not force people to do business with someone against their wishes. Let the fee market decide if people want to do business with those that refuse to serve X, Y, or Z.

He's saying that now because he knows where this is going in the Courts. He doesn't want the legal battery of Christians like the Kleins to give them standing (a defense) to walk the issue before the US Supreme Court. Because when they do, the right of them to politely refuse service will be upheld. And then the nature of religion vs deviant sex behaviors will have to be dissected under a microscope in an official USSC Opinion. That's the last thing mdk wants.

But it's going to happen. That ship has already sailed...or is sailing as we speak. Those two scheming lesbians who brought the hurt on the Kleins on purpose, just launched a missile with a boomerang attached to it.

Liberals are always their own worst enemy. They create the problems and then cry the loudest about the problems that they created themselves! Their absurd socialist economic policies create poverty and then they cry all day about poverty and wealth disparity.

 

[P@triot]

The requirement ***** Puppy is that they be non familial consenting adults. Gay couples marrying meet those requirements.

Hey stupid - the requirement was one man and one woman. You changed it for your own agenda. So you've now illustrated your own hypocrisy ***** Puppy. You'll rewrite marriage for your own disturbed deviance but not for somebody else. So much for your "love wins" bullshit, uh?

Hey, non serving *****, the requirement was one black man and one black woman or one white woman and one white man...until it wasn't...bigots whined about that too.

So here is ***** Puppy moving the goalposts.

You make no sense ***** Puppy. You're basically admitting that the requirements have changed over and over. So why can't they change yet again for this mom and son? Because you're a selfish hypocrite?

Yes, they have. They aren't going to change to include; incest, polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia or any of your slippery slope fantasies. But feel free to keep sniveling about gays...who ARE marrying and will continue to marry. No amount of "patriot" pussyaching will change that.

I can just imagine that he gets so furious about his deviant paranoia that he leaves tread marks while setting naked on the couch typing...

The maturity of moonglow once again illustrated for everyone. No wonder he has to pursue "underage age" children (his exact quote). No way in hell a grown woman would give the time of day to someone that juvenile.

 

[P@triot]

The requirement ***** Puppy is that they be non familial consenting adults. Gay couples marrying meet those requirements.

Hey stupid - the requirement was one man and one woman. You changed it for your own agenda. So you've now illustrated your own hypocrisy ***** Puppy. You'll rewrite marriage for your own disturbed deviance but not for somebody else. So much for your "love wins" bullshit, uh?

Hey, non serving *****, the requirement was one black man and one black woman or one white woman and one white man...until it wasn't...bigots whined about that too.

So here is ***** Puppy moving the goalposts.

You make no sense ***** Puppy. You're basically admitting that the requirements have changed over and over. So why can't they change yet again for this mom and son? Because you're a selfish hypocrite?

Yes, they have. They aren't going to change to include; incest, polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia or any of your slippery slope fantasies. But feel free to keep sniveling about gays...who ARE marrying and will continue to marry. No amount of "patriot" pussyaching will change that.

Keep telling yourself that ***** Puppy. Your side of the aisle always attempts to "progress" to the next step (which in reality is to regress back to prehistoric man where any uncivilized activity was acceptable). You're the one preaching in another thread how a mentally disturbed man with sexual deviance should have the "right" to shower with a 6 year old girl or use the restrooms with her. As we speak - your side is working around the clock to "normalize" pedophilia. They have also begun the process to convince people that a mother should be able to "abort" her child up to 4 years old.

So don't tell me about "slippery slope" because that's the kind of sick shit your side of the aisle lives for. What did Nancy Pelosi say when asked about how awful Obamacare was? To paraphrase "At least we have something now that we can begin to build on". The libtards think we're too stupid to realize their entire game plan is to just get their foot in the door with something deviant and then build on it exponentially from there.