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

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,002
Reaction score
3,437
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
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?
^^^

View attachment 464029
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?

That's what I thought.
If your so smart why don't you spell it out for us idiots?
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,002
Reaction score
3,437
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA

This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
She's correct.
Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
You are a crock of shit. Yes it does specifically protect LGBT people because they are the ones in need of protection. But at the same tim, it makes it clear that the protections extend to everyone equally.

Feb 23, 2021 · “(b) Claims and remedies not precluded.—Nothing in section 1101 or a covered title shall be construed to limit the claims or remedies available to any individual for an unlawful practice on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin including claims brought pursuant to section 1979 or 1980 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985) or any other law, including a Federal law amended by the Equality Act,
It does not bestow any "special rights" It ensures EQUAL rights. You people need to get iver your pathological hysteria over this.
Judges will be forced by social pressure to treat gay people more favorably.
Judges belong to a party and bow to political pressure all the time.
You're just making that shit up. Our system assumes that judges willn be fair and impartial. Sometimes they are not but that can go either way. For the most part LGBT people will be treated equally in court and protected in society.

Are you not also concerned about racial and religious minorities being give favoratism as the result of the verry same Civil Rights Act ? If you are not then you have some serious explaining to do
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
51,524
Reaction score
13,300
Points
2,180

This lady was elected. rightwinger try not to have your ears bleed out.
She's correct.
Now let's see the text of the Equality Act.
If it specifically protects people with particular sexual tendencies then it's a crock of shit.
You are a crock of shit. Yes it does specifically protect LGBT people because they are the ones in need of protection. But at the same tim, it makes it clear that the protections extend to everyone equally.

Feb 23, 2021 · “(b) Claims and remedies not precluded.—Nothing in section 1101 or a covered title shall be construed to limit the claims or remedies available to any individual for an unlawful practice on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin including claims brought pursuant to section 1979 or 1980 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985) or any other law, including a Federal law amended by the Equality Act,
It does not bestow any "special rights" It ensures EQUAL rights. You people need to get iver your pathological hysteria over this.
Judges will be forced by social pressure to treat gay people more favorably.
Judges belong to a party and bow to political pressure all the time.
You're just making that shit up. Our system assumes that judges willn be fair and impartial. Sometimes they are not but that can go either way. For the most part LGBT people will be treated equally in court and protected in society.

Are you not also concerned about racial and religious minorities being give favoratism as the result of the verry same Civil Rights Act ? If you are not then you have some serious explaining to do
It’s obvious you cherry pick the cases you read about.
What actual events motivate you to think the justice system treats homosexuals any different than heterosexuals?
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,047
Reaction score
919
Points
210
If your so smart why don't you spell it out for us idiots?
No, no! You claimed to grasp the real-world outcomes of the agenda, that the legislation protects the rights of all, so you explain how it doesn't actually violate the inherent rights of natural and constitutional law:

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional. You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority. You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them. You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.​
You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.​

Thanks.
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,002
Reaction score
3,437
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional. You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority. You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them. You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.

You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.

Thanks.

The only thing that leftistsmindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicianswill ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances? Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation

You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what? You are boardering on the bizarre here

You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
. Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?

. You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
Like what? You sound hysterical now
You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
WHAT . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?

You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities, Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
51,524
Reaction score
13,300
Points
2,180
Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional. You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority. You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them. You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.

You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.

Thanks.

The only thing that leftistsmindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicianswill ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances? Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation

You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what? You are boardering on the bizarre here

You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
. Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?

. You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
Like what? You sound hysterical now
You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
WHAT . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?

You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities, Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
Ad hominem.
In the next post you can answer the question(s).
 

Polishprince

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
29,178
Reaction score
15,216
Points
1,415
Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional. You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority. You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them. You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.

You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.

Thanks.

The only thing that leftistsmindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicianswill ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances? Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation

You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what? You are boardering on the bizarre here

You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
. Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?

. You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
Like what? You sound hysterical now
You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
WHAT . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?

You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities, Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick

LGBT people aren't really a "minority" at all, they are just people who like to engage in specific types of perversion. If they decided not to dress up like broads and shove gerbils in their keisters or whatever, the She-Males would be exactly the same as anyone else.

All that Normative folks ask is that you keep it to yourselves, and only tell people on a need-to-know basis.
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,002
Reaction score
3,437
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional. You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority. You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them. You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.

You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.

Thanks.

The only thing that leftistsmindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicianswill ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances? Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation

You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what? You are boardering on the bizarre here

You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
. Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?

. You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
Like what? You sound hysterical now
You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
WHAT . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?

You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities, Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
Ad hominem.
In the next post you can answer the question(s).
Those are not even questions. They are bizarre assumption and chicken little type slippery slope fallacies with not examples to expain what the hell he is talking about
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,002
Reaction score
3,437
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional. You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority. You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them. You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.

You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.

Thanks.

The only thing that leftistsmindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicianswill ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances? Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation

You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what? You are boardering on the bizarre here

You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
. Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?

. You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
Like what? You sound hysterical now
You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
WHAT . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?

You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities, Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick

LGBT people aren't really a "minority" at all, they are just people who like to engage in specific types of perversion. If they decided not to dress up like broads and shove gerbils in their keisters or whatever, the She-Males would be exactly the same as anyone else.

All that Normative folks ask is that you keep it to yourselves, and only tell people on a need-to-know basis.
Tell us more Princess. We will hang on your every pearl of wisdom. Tell us a good prison rape story and how you fought for your manhood
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
51,524
Reaction score
13,300
Points
2,180
Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional. You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority. You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them. You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.

You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.

Thanks.

The only thing that leftistsmindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicianswill ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances? Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation

You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what? You are boardering on the bizarre here

You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
. Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?

. You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
Like what? You sound hysterical now
You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
WHAT . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?

You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities, Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
Ad hominem.
In the next post you can answer the question(s).
Those are not even questions. They are bizarre assumption and chicken little type slippery slope fallacies with not examples to expain what the hell he is talking about
You didn’t answer the questions.
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,002
Reaction score
3,437
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Get a grip Dude. Explain EXACTLY what those outcomes would be and while your at it, explain how extending the civil rights act to LGBT people is any different then the protections that other minorities already have.
You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional. You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority. You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . . . You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them. You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.

You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.

Thanks.

The only thing that leftistsmindless, statist bootlicks, indeed, the useful idiots of power hungry politicianswill ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
You get a clue, Dude. You imply that you grasp the real-world outcomes of this legislative agenda.
I asked you before how would the outcomes with respect to LGBT folks be different from the outcomes in relation to racial and religious minorities. If you are only concerned when the issue is sexual minorities you have a lot of explaining to do.

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association, in and of itself, relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
Who is it that you don’t wish to associate with and under what circumstances? Again I ask, Is this a concern only in relation to sexual minorities? If we are talking about public accommodations here, many states already prohibit discrimiantion based on gender identity or sexual orientation

You explain why this agenda does not further empower the state to violate parental consent and authority.
You really have to explain this one. Parental consent for what? You are boardering on the bizarre here

You explain how it would not further empower the state to violate the inalienable rights of religion, free-association, private property, free speech. . .
. Freedom of religion, association and speech are not absolute and do not give the right to discriminate, Deal with it. And once again I must ask, since the Civil Rights Act also covers other minorities, why the fuss about LGBT people?

. You explain how it would not further empower the state to compel folks to engage in speech and activities that are morally anathema to them.
Like what? You sound hysterical now
You explain by what right the government relegates those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry.
WHAT . What the hell are you talking about now? Are the voices in your hed telling you that,, or is it Marjory Green?

You explain the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. You explain the difference between the inherent rights of natural law, and the collectivistic, civil rights imposed by the state.
You explain how this is not a Red Herring logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you are only in a tither about this law because it involves LGBT people but would not apply the same objections to the law when it pertains to other minorities, Here you are just throwing more dung at the hopping that something will stick
Ad hominem.
In the next post you can answer the question(s).
Those are not even questions. They are bizarre assumption and chicken little type slippery slope fallacies with not examples to expain what the hell he is talking about
You didn’t answer the questions.
Buzz off wierdo
 

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
2,619
Reaction score
1,997
Points
1,940

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

The broad is spot on correct. Sexual Perverts of all kinds are truly being granted Supremacy by the Biden Regime.

If someone is a crossdresser, that's their own affair, but why should they have special rights to be exempt from any criticism?
Yes. Because of Woke Democrats this is becoming a land of Sodom and Gomorrah. AIDS was Gods first warning to the Sodomites. The NEXT one won't be so nice.
 
OP
AFrench2

AFrench2

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2021
Messages
3,350
Reaction score
2,551
Points
1,893
Location
Fort Worth, TX
Yes. Because of Woke Democrats this is becoming a land of Sodom and Gomorrah. AIDS was Gods first warning to the Sodomites. The NEXT one won't be so nice.-San Souci

Well, the quota for "most insane fucking thing said all day" is taken today by you. Grats.
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,002
Reaction score
3,437
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA

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

The broad is spot on correct. Sexual Perverts of all kinds are truly being granted Supremacy by the Biden Regime.

If someone is a crossdresser, that's their own affair, but why should they have special rights to be exempt from any criticism?
Yes. Because of Woke Democrats this is becoming a land of Sodom and Gomorrah. AIDS was Gods first warning to the Sodomites. The NEXT one won't be so nice.
1614891157703.png
1614891191924.png
 

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
2,619
Reaction score
1,997
Points
1,940

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

The broad is spot on correct. Sexual Perverts of all kinds are truly being granted Supremacy by the Biden Regime.

If someone is a crossdresser, that's their own affair, but why should they have special rights to be exempt from any criticism?
Yes. Because of Woke Democrats this is becoming a land of Sodom and Gomorrah. AIDS was Gods first warning to the Sodomites. The NEXT one won't be so nice.
View attachment 464166View attachment 464167
No. Progressivism is filthy Communism and Sodomy.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top