New Congresswomen Lauren Bohbert Says New Bill Makes Gays and Transvestites Supreme to Everyone Else

[Indeependent]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

I ran from nothing.
I posted your own statement in your face and you ran away for 4 days.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.

This lady is a liar.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

I ran from nothing.
I posted your own statement in your face and you ran away for 4 days.

Bullshit! Stop lying!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

The law already protects all Americans.
There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.

More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!

 

[Indeependent]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

I ran from nothing.
I posted your own statement in your face and you ran away for 4 days.

Bullshit! Stop lying!

You stop lying!

 

[Indeependent]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

The law already protects all Americans.
There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.

More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!

Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

The law already protects all Americans.
There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.

More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!

Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.

Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue

 

[Indeependent]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

The law already protects all Americans.
There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.

More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!

Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.

Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue

You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
Of course only your instance was reported.

Income Equality?
Fire all the men.
A big problem during GW and Obama.
Any special laws?

 

[Polishprince]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

The law already protects all Americans.
There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.

More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!

Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.

Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue

As far as I'm concerned, you can get "dolled up" and loaf on a street corner or a highway rest stop every night with the pimps, fairies, hoes and johns, if that's what you dig.

But don't insult my intelligence and insist that you are normal.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

The law already protects all Americans.
There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.

More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!

Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.

Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue

You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
Of course only your instance was reported.

Income Equality?
Fire all the men.
A big problem during GW and Obama.
Any special laws?

Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

The law already protects all Americans.
There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.

More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!

Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.

Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue

As far as I'm concerned, you can get "dolled up" and loaf on a street corner or a highway rest stop every night with the pimps, fairies, hoes and johns, if that's what you dig.

But don't insult my intelligence and insist that you are normal.

Intelligence??

 

[Indeependent]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

The law already protects all Americans.
There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.

More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!

Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.

Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue

You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
Of course only your instance was reported.

Income Equality?
Fire all the men.
A big problem during GW and Obama.
Any special laws?

Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens

You don’t get it...
Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

The law already protects all Americans.
There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.

More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!

Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.

Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue

You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
Of course only your instance was reported.

Income Equality?
Fire all the men.
A big problem during GW and Obama.
Any special laws?

Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens

You don’t get it...
Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.

I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected

 

[Indeependent]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

The law already protects all Americans.
There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.

More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!

Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.

Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue

You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
Of course only your instance was reported.

Income Equality?
Fire all the men.
A big problem during GW and Obama.
Any special laws?

Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens

You don’t get it...
Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.

I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected

You believe LGBT people should be protected.
I believe all people should be protected.
LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

The law already protects all Americans.
There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.

More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!

Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.

Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue

You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
Of course only your instance was reported.

Income Equality?
Fire all the men.
A big problem during GW and Obama.
Any special laws?

Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens

You don’t get it...
Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.

I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected

You believe LGBT people should be protected.
I believe all people should be protected.
LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.

You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection. You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

The law already protects all Americans.
There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.

More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!

Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.

Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue

You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
Of course only your instance was reported.

Income Equality?
Fire all the men.
A big problem during GW and Obama.
Any special laws?

Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens

You don’t get it...
Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.

I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected

You believe LGBT people should be protected.
I believe all people should be protected.
LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.

Is LGBTQ discriminated against?
Since the beginning of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community, it has been one of the most discriminated against groups in the world as they are denied the basic rights that most people get to enjoy. Today, it is still legal to discriminate someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity in thirty states.
Discrimination of the LGBTQ community - Free Essay Example ...
papersowl.com/examples/discrimination-of-the-lgbtq-com…

________________________________________________________________

Is the LGBTQ community still vulnerable to discrimination?
Millions of LGBTQ workers remain vulnerable to discrimination in employment today seeing as there’s no real laws protecting them from it. Members of the LGBTQ community get discriminated against every day by the general public, in schools, and in the workplace.
Discrimination of the LGBTQ community - Free Essay Example ...
papersowl.com/examples/discrimination-of-the-lgbtq-com…
See all results for this question

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Is the LGBTQ community still vulnerable to discrimination?


Now get the fuck out of here !

 

[Indeependent]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

The law already protects all Americans.
There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.

More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!

Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.

Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue

You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
Of course only your instance was reported.

Income Equality?
Fire all the men.
A big problem during GW and Obama.
Any special laws?

Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens

You don’t get it...
Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.

I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected

You believe LGBT people should be protected.
I believe all people should be protected.
LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.

You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection. You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .

You are seeing this from your point of view.
In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts rioted outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, violent, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.

Women getting equal pay?
Sure.
Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.

You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.

And the worst part of it all is that your are so emotionally disturbed, mentally ill and stupid that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.

 

[Indeependent]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

The law already protects all Americans.
There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.

More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!

Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.

Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue

You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
Of course only your instance was reported.

Income Equality?
Fire all the men.
A big problem during GW and Obama.
Any special laws?

Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens

You don’t get it...
Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.

I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected

You believe LGBT people should be protected.
I believe all people should be protected.
LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.

Is LGBTQ discriminated against?
Since the beginning of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community, it has been one of the most discriminated against groups in the world as they are denied the basic rights that most people get to enjoy. Today, it is still legal to discriminate someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity in thirty states.
Discrimination of the LGBTQ community - Free Essay Example ...
papersowl.com/examples/discrimination-of-the-lgbtq-com…

________________________________________________________________

Is the LGBTQ community still vulnerable to discrimination?
Millions of LGBTQ workers remain vulnerable to discrimination in employment today seeing as there’s no real laws protecting them from it. Members of the LGBTQ community get discriminated against every day by the general public, in schools, and in the workplace.
Discrimination of the LGBTQ community - Free Essay Example ...
papersowl.com/examples/discrimination-of-the-lgbtq-com…
See all results for this question

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Is the LGBTQ community still vulnerable to discrimination?


Now get the fuck out of here !

I don't give a fuck about an article written by a homosexual whose manager is a homosexual.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

The law already protects all Americans.
There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.

More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!

Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.

Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue

You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
Of course only your instance was reported.

Income Equality?
Fire all the men.
A big problem during GW and Obama.
Any special laws?

Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens

You don’t get it...
Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.

I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected

You believe LGBT people should be protected.
I believe all people should be protected.
LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.

You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection. You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .

You are seeing this from your point of view.
In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts rioted outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, violent, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.

Women getting equal pay?
Sure.
Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.

You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.

And the worst part of it all is that your are so emotionally disturbed, mentally ill and stupid that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.

The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop .

You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress

 

[Indeependent]

equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.

So you don't know what the actual outcomes would be. You're not cognizant of the outrageous violations of First-Amendment liberties and property rights this legislation portends, or cognizant of the judicial shitstorm that would arise if it were passed by the Senate and signed into law?

That's what I thought.

You hear the word equal and get a weepy, snot-stained hankey feeling. Hot damn, leftist politicians love useful idiots like you!

But, then, you in all likelihood are a rank narcissist or sociopath, so you wouldn't give a damn about the violation of others' natural rights anyway.

After all, you're a leftist, aren't you? You're a statist bootlick of collectivist, mobocratic rule, right?

They said the same stupid shit about civil rights for blacks. Same bullshit, different target. People who hate have to hate. It's just a mattter of what you can get away with, or think tyat you can get away with any a given point in time.

The difference is that black people don't choose to be black.

OTOH, people do choose what kind of sexual perversion they want to engage in.

Believe me, if you go to the Ghetto in your city and walk up to a group of young black guys on the corner and tell them" I don't see any difference between you guys and the Homos", it will not go over that well and you will be asking for and receiving an ugly scene.

Gay people did not choose to be gay either moron. But you apparently chose to be an ignorant bigot. Well, maybe that is unfair. You can't help it just like blacks and gays.

Which has what to do with the fact that the USC already has provisions to allow people to live in peace?

Please point us to the Article of-or amendment to- the Constitution, or Constitutional Case Law that specifically protects LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations and financial transactions .

Posts 93 and 109.
You stepped in your own doo doo.

Post 109 ? Your post fool!
You said: In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
I said in post 93: Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
You said in 109 : If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law? .
How the fuck does any of that mean that LGBT people are protected by the constitution. You are either insane, stupid or just playing a sick game. A combination of all three I suspect

You said that LGBT people don't dress out of the ordinary in public.
Why would someone who is not publicly displaying their sexuality need a special mention in a legal clause?
Stop your ProgBot bullshit and answer the question that can't be logically answered.

First of all smiley, let me remind you that this exchange began when you stupidly claimed that the US Constitution already contains all of the protections against discrimination that are needed, suggesting that no legislatoion is needed. I challanged you on that and you ran from it, not even attempting to defend you inane claim

NOW, you come up with this bullshit as a distraction. You think that you are clever by picking up on something that I might have said about appearances and presenting it out of context to try to score points. All that you are doing is to make yourself look even more pathetic and stupid then you already do.

This is not about appearances. People become aware of the gender identity and sexual orientation in many ways which I have previously discussed. That leads to discrimination which is still common in most states where state laws do do provide protections. It is for that reason that federal legislation is need. I think that you might actually be smart enough to know that but that you are just playing a sick game and desparatly trying to defend you bigotry. Now shut up.

The law already protects all Americans.
There are a myriad of laws protecting employment and not one judge has ever protected Americans for just being Americans and THAT’S the problem.
Americans are screwed and sexual perverts almost always wind up winning anyway.
If anything, heterosexuals require more legislation than perverts.

More bullshit. Now I'm convinced that you don't believe your own lies OR you are really that stupid. Gay people have been fired from jobs for posting same sex wedding pictures on social media. Get the hell out of here!

Gay people have been hired in corporate America because most don’t have kids to run home to.

Red herring logical fallacy. Let's see how much more dung you can throw at the wall in an attempt to avoid the real issue

You posted a rare case and I posted a common instance in the work place.
Of course only your instance was reported.

Income Equality?
Fire all the men.
A big problem during GW and Obama.
Any special laws?

Thank you for admitting that legislation is needed. Rare or not it happens

You don’t get it...
Corporate attorneys know how to get around everything.

I get the fact that you are struggling totry to show that this legislation is not necessary instead of being honest a just admit that you don't think that LGBT people should be protected

You believe LGBT people should be protected.
I believe all people should be protected.
LGBT people de facto have more protection than anyone else because of ProgBots being loud and obnoxious in front of cameras.

You are totally full of shit. You are either lying or just that stupid. Yes all people should be protected, but all people do not need the same protection. You are clearly too much of a dishonest coward to admit that you do not want protections for LGBT people .

You are seeing this from your point of view.
In the late 80s, gays and drug addicts rioted outside pharmaceutical laboratories for a cure to a disease that they created themselves through careless sexual relations.
A large percentage of research on heart disease and cancer was stalled due to the sexually perverted owners of media who wanted to engage in anal intercourse and shoot heroin into their veins.
I worked in a cubicle next to a very nice guy who was on the phone all week with his friends planning to block scientists from entering their laboratories.
I'm sure you're proud of the thousands of people who died from cancer and heart disease as long as the loud, obnoxious, violent, sexual perverts were able to enjoy their orgies.

Women getting equal pay?
Sure.
Fire mostly men along with other random groups of people so that the companies can't be sued.
I'm sure all of the people who lost their careers, homes and families want to express their appreciation to your helping their lives become miserable.

You and your sympathies and empathies with overt sexual perverts prevent you from seeing the effects you have had on health care and the economic impact of singles and families and their children.
But who cares about the children of heterosexuals when you can spend your energies on 2% of the population rather than 98% of the population.

And the worst part of it all is that your are so emotionally disturbed, mentally ill and stupid that not one iota of these facts will change your mind that all the laws on earth won't stop social perverts from ruining countless lives.

The year is 2021 and this rant is nothing but bigoted bovine excrement and Gish Gallop .View attachment 465628View attachment 465631
You are still displaying a pathetic desparation to justify your opposition to the Equality Act. You're callinbg me emotionally disturbed only highlights your own distress

That's all you got when faced with historical facts you perverted piece of shit.