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

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,044
Reaction score
918
Points
210
why do you think you are free to discriminate anything because you think it's evil & icky? your first amendment rights are fully intact because of the constitution.
Ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty, dummy. By what right does the government compel me to make expressions or engage in activities that I hold to be immoral?
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
35,134
Reaction score
20,216
Points
2,945
why do you think you are free to discriminate anything because you think it's evil & icky? your first amendment rights are fully intact because of the constitution.
Ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty, dummy. By what right does the government compel me to make expressions or engage in activities that I hold to be immoral?
is the gov'ment making you turn gay?
 

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
1,996
Points
1,940
why do you think you are free to discriminate anything because you think it's evil & icky? your first amendment rights are fully intact because of the constitution.
Ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty, dummy. By what right does the government compel me to make expressions or engage in activities that I hold to be immoral?
is the gov'ment making you turn gay?
It is making the Country into Sodom and Gomorrah. Teaching CHILDREN that sick behavior is normal? PPPFFFTTT!
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
35,134
Reaction score
20,216
Points
2,945
why do you think you are free to discriminate anything because you think it's evil & icky? your first amendment rights are fully intact because of the constitution.
Ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty, dummy. By what right does the government compel me to make expressions or engage in activities that I hold to be immoral?
is the gov'ment making you turn gay?
It is making the Country into Sodom and Gomorrah. Teaching CHILDREN that sick behavior is normal? PPPFFFTTT!
you rooted for the biblical dude that had sex with his daughters. so stfu.
 

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
1,996
Points
1,940
why do you think you are free to discriminate anything because you think it's evil & icky? your first amendment rights are fully intact because of the constitution.
Ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty, dummy. By what right does the government compel me to make expressions or engage in activities that I hold to be immoral?
is the gov'ment making you turn gay?
It is making the Country into Sodom and Gomorrah. Teaching CHILDREN that sick behavior is normal? PPPFFFTTT!
you rooted for the biblical dude that had sex with his daughters. so stfu.
According to scripture ,Joseph married his own niece. Incest was not always an abomination. Sodomy ALWAYS has been. At least Lot didn't get punked.
 

DrLove

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
28,204
Reaction score
11,520
Points
950
Location
Central Oregon Coast
why do you think you are free to discriminate anything because you think it's evil & icky? your first amendment rights are fully intact because of the constitution.
Ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty, dummy. By what right does the government compel me to make expressions or engage in activities that I hold to be immoral?
So don't bake the cake - And please stop whining incessantly. Oh - And fix your sig please. Highly annoying
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
35,134
Reaction score
20,216
Points
2,945
why do you think you are free to discriminate anything because you think it's evil & icky? your first amendment rights are fully intact because of the constitution.
Ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty, dummy. By what right does the government compel me to make expressions or engage in activities that I hold to be immoral?
is the gov'ment making you turn gay?
It is making the Country into Sodom and Gomorrah. Teaching CHILDREN that sick behavior is normal? PPPFFFTTT!
you rooted for the biblical dude that had sex with his daughters. so stfu.
According to scripture ,Joseph married his own niece. Incest was not always an abomination. Sodomy ALWAYS has been. At least Lot didn't get punked.
^ ' Incest was not always an abomination. '

uh-huh. neither was abortion. but that doesn't stop the pro birthers from saying it's sacrilege.

????????????????????

doesn't that tell you anything about the OT?
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
51,512
Reaction score
13,296
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.
Buzz off wierdo
Buzz off wierdo

Ad hominem.
You didn’t answer the questions.
Because you can't.

Have you heard of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
When Reagan became President he bribed Patrick Moynihan and every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to nullify all laws to ensure minority employment.
You see, the corporations that supported this endeavor have attorneys that are much smarter than you and they will find 100 ways to bypass this law and either not hire people who publicly display their sexuality or to fire people who publicly display their sexuality, even if a company has to fire 1,000 other people to get away with it.

Now why do you consider people who publicly display their sexuality to not be Americans?
What do you mean by"publicly displaying their sexuality" Having a picture of their same sex spous on their desk. Posting pictures of their sam sex wedding on social media? You can do that . Why can't others withour the threat of reprisals? You need to give more thought to your bullshit and stop trying to distract with your Red Herrings and Gish Gallop.
View attachment 464193View attachment 464194
Are you saying that trans-dressers do not display their sexuality in public?
Are you saying that homosexuals do not display their sexuality in public?
If so, you haven't been in NYC lately.

In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
3,437
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
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
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.
Holy fucking Christ! You are just repeating the same vague and inane equine excrement without explaining what the fuck you are so worked upm about.. OK, I get it. You are programed to spew this crap without really undeerstanding what it all means. So, lets take this in baby steps one at a time

Please explain EXACTLY how the Equality Act would infringe on parental rights with respect to consent and authority. Please be specic. Give examples of what you fear will happen. What parental rights are we talking about? What specific provision of the act are you referring to?

For extra credit try this: explain what you mean by the "government relegating those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry." Again, give examples and cite the provision of the law that would do that

By the way, I do indeed grasp the real world outcomes. LGBT people would be treated as equals and with dignityThey could not be discrimianted against fwith regards to housing, employment , public accomodations and business matters. What is the problem ?
Try and see if you can deal with one issue at a time, as you seemed to be overwhelmed.

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
Holy fucking shit you are a hopeless case. Just more of the same evasive bullshit! What the fuck are you talking about? You are completely unable to actually explain what the negative consequenses of the equality act would look like IN THE REAL WORLD. Cut the fucking bullshit and answere the question. I am not overwhelmed. I am underwhelmed by your bullshit. Try some fucking honesty and clarity! I keep asking you to give specific examples of what you are taking about and I get is theoretical gobbidy gook that explains nothing. How is the law infringing on your right to free associate .Stop being a coward and answer the question.
 
Last edited:

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,001
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
Buzz off wierdo

Ad hominem.
You didn’t answer the questions.
Because you can't.

Have you heard of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
When Reagan became President he bribed Patrick Moynihan and every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to nullify all laws to ensure minority employment.
You see, the corporations that supported this endeavor have attorneys that are much smarter than you and they will find 100 ways to bypass this law and either not hire people who publicly display their sexuality or to fire people who publicly display their sexuality, even if a company has to fire 1,000 other people to get away with it.

Now why do you consider people who publicly display their sexuality to not be Americans?
What do you mean by"publicly displaying their sexuality" Having a picture of their same sex spous on their desk. Posting pictures of their sam sex wedding on social media? You can do that . Why can't others withour the threat of reprisals? You need to give more thought to your bullshit and stop trying to distract with your Red Herrings and Gish Gallop.
View attachment 464193View attachment 464194
Are you saying that trans-dressers do not display their sexuality in public?
Are you saying that homosexuals do not display their sexuality in public?
If so, you haven't been in NYC lately.

In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?
Becaue you bigots will use it against people and get them fired from jobs among other things . Are you really so stupid as to not see that?
 

JustAGuy1

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
6,529
Points
1,940
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
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.
Holy fucking Christ! You are just repeating the same vague and inane equine excrement without explaining what the fuck you are so worked upm about.. OK, I get it. You are programed to spew this crap without really undeerstanding what it all means. So, lets take this in baby steps one at a time

Please explain EXACTLY how the Equality Act would infringe on parental rights with respect to consent and authority. Please be specic. Give examples of what you fear will happen. What parental rights are we talking about? What specific provision of the act are you referring to?

For extra credit try this: explain what you mean by the "government relegating those who eschew the sexual immorality of paganism to second-class citizenry." Again, give examples and cite the provision of the law that would do that

By the way, I do indeed grasp the real world outcomes. LGBT people would be treated as equals and with dignityThey could not be discrimianted against fwith regards to housing, employment , public accomodations and business matters. What is the problem ?
Try and see if you can deal with one issue at a time, as you seemed to be overwhelmed.

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
Holy fucking shit you are a hpeless case. Just more of the same evasive bullshit! What the fuck are you talking about? Ypu are completely unable to actually explain what the negative consequenses of the equality act would look like IN THE REAL WORLD. Cut the fucking bullshit and answere the question. I am not overwhelmed. I am underwhelmed by your bullshit. Try some fucking honesty and clarity!
Tell us asshole, what are your pronouns today?
 

JustAGuy1

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
6,529
Points
1,940
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
Buzz off wierdo

Ad hominem.
You didn’t answer the questions.
Because you can't.

Have you heard of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
When Reagan became President he bribed Patrick Moynihan and every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to nullify all laws to ensure minority employment.
You see, the corporations that supported this endeavor have attorneys that are much smarter than you and they will find 100 ways to bypass this law and either not hire people who publicly display their sexuality or to fire people who publicly display their sexuality, even if a company has to fire 1,000 other people to get away with it.

Now why do you consider people who publicly display their sexuality to not be Americans?
What do you mean by"publicly displaying their sexuality" Having a picture of their same sex spous on their desk. Posting pictures of their sam sex wedding on social media? You can do that . Why can't others withour the threat of reprisals? You need to give more thought to your bullshit and stop trying to distract with your Red Herrings and Gish Gallop.
View attachment 464193View attachment 464194
Are you saying that trans-dressers do not display their sexuality in public?
Are you saying that homosexuals do not display their sexuality in public?
If so, you haven't been in NYC lately.

In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?
Becaue you bigots will use it against people and get them fired from jobs among other things . Are you really so stupid as to not see that?
You're a lying sack of shit. Let your boyfriend suck your cock in public you go to jail, lose your job. Do it in your bedroom who cares.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
51,512
Reaction score
13,296
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.
Buzz off wierdo
Buzz off wierdo

Ad hominem.
You didn’t answer the questions.
Because you can't.

Have you heard of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
When Reagan became President he bribed Patrick Moynihan and every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to nullify all laws to ensure minority employment.
You see, the corporations that supported this endeavor have attorneys that are much smarter than you and they will find 100 ways to bypass this law and either not hire people who publicly display their sexuality or to fire people who publicly display their sexuality, even if a company has to fire 1,000 other people to get away with it.

Now why do you consider people who publicly display their sexuality to not be Americans?
What do you mean by"publicly displaying their sexuality" Having a picture of their same sex spous on their desk. Posting pictures of their sam sex wedding on social media? You can do that . Why can't others withour the threat of reprisals? You need to give more thought to your bullshit and stop trying to distract with your Red Herrings and Gish Gallop.
View attachment 464193View attachment 464194
Are you saying that trans-dressers do not display their sexuality in public?
Are you saying that homosexuals do not display their sexuality in public?
If so, you haven't been in NYC lately.

In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?
Becaue you bigots will use it against people and get them fired from jobs among other things . Are you really so stupid as to not see that?
My, my, are you still using your emotions rather than logic?
Provide an example of how anyone can convince someone else that a non-heterosexual is not an American and will have the law on their side.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
51,512
Reaction score
13,296
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.
Buzz off wierdo
Buzz off wierdo

Ad hominem.
You didn’t answer the questions.
Because you can't.

Have you heard of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
When Reagan became President he bribed Patrick Moynihan and every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to nullify all laws to ensure minority employment.
You see, the corporations that supported this endeavor have attorneys that are much smarter than you and they will find 100 ways to bypass this law and either not hire people who publicly display their sexuality or to fire people who publicly display their sexuality, even if a company has to fire 1,000 other people to get away with it.

Now why do you consider people who publicly display their sexuality to not be Americans?
What do you mean by"publicly displaying their sexuality" Having a picture of their same sex spous on their desk. Posting pictures of their sam sex wedding on social media? You can do that . Why can't others withour the threat of reprisals? You need to give more thought to your bullshit and stop trying to distract with your Red Herrings and Gish Gallop.
View attachment 464193View attachment 464194
Are you saying that trans-dressers do not display their sexuality in public?
Are you saying that homosexuals do not display their sexuality in public?
If so, you haven't been in NYC lately.

In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?
Becaue you bigots will use it against people and get them fired from jobs among other things . Are you really so stupid as to not see that?
You're a lying sack of shit. Let your boyfriend suck your cock in public you go to jail, lose your job. Do it in your bedroom who cares.
Notice that the ProgBots cannot address the issue so they resort to their usual MO...insults.
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,001
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
Buzz off wierdo

Ad hominem.
You didn’t answer the questions.
Because you can't.

Have you heard of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
When Reagan became President he bribed Patrick Moynihan and every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to nullify all laws to ensure minority employment.
You see, the corporations that supported this endeavor have attorneys that are much smarter than you and they will find 100 ways to bypass this law and either not hire people who publicly display their sexuality or to fire people who publicly display their sexuality, even if a company has to fire 1,000 other people to get away with it.

Now why do you consider people who publicly display their sexuality to not be Americans?
What do you mean by"publicly displaying their sexuality" Having a picture of their same sex spous on their desk. Posting pictures of their sam sex wedding on social media? You can do that . Why can't others withour the threat of reprisals? You need to give more thought to your bullshit and stop trying to distract with your Red Herrings and Gish Gallop.
View attachment 464193View attachment 464194
Are you saying that trans-dressers do not display their sexuality in public?
Are you saying that homosexuals do not display their sexuality in public?
If so, you haven't been in NYC lately.

In direct response to you post, why would anyone attack or offend someone for the sexuality if they are not displaying their sexuality.
Do straight, cisgender people display their sexuality in public? What the fuck is the difference ??!
If so, why would we need anyone's sexuality mentioned specifically in a law?
Becaue you bigots will use it against people and get them fired from jobs among other things . Are you really so stupid as to not see that?
My, my, are you still using your emotions rather than logic?
Provide an example of how anyone can convince someone else that a non-heterosexual is not an American and will have the law on their side.
That is bizarre and moronic! You are just playing juvenile word games now .Fuck off
 
Last edited:

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,044
Reaction score
918
Points
210
Holy fucking shit you are a hopeless case. Just more of the same evasive bullshit! What the fuck are you talking about? You are completely unable to actually explain what the negative consequenses of the equality act would look like IN THE REAL WORLD. Cut the fucking bullshit and answere the question. I am not overwhelmed. I am underwhelmed by your bullshit. Try some fucking honesty and clarity! I keep asking you to give specific examples of what you are taking about and I get is theoretical gobbidy gook that explains nothing. How is the law infringing on your right to free associate .Stop being a coward and answer the question.
Calm down, Sunshine.

By what right does the government compel a homosexual business owner, for example, to provide goods or services that entail making expressions or directly participating in activities that the same regards as evil or icky?

Thanks.
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,001
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.
You explain too. See post #56.
so how did women getting the right to vote - affect *you*? being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent - affect *you* ? the right to own property - affect *you*?

how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain - affect *you*?

how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you* or your right to practice *your* religion? how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?

are you connecting the dots yet?
Yes. Liberals suck. Dot Dot Dot
You fucking articulate
 

JustAGuy1

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
6,529
Points
1,940
equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.
You explain too. See post #56.
so how did women getting the right to vote - affect *you*? being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent - affect *you* ? the right to own property - affect *you*?

how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain - affect *you*?

how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you* or your right to practice *your* religion? how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?

are you connecting the dots yet?
Yes. Liberals suck. Dot Dot Dot
You fucking articulate
Go fuck yourself old man.What are your pronouns today?
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
51,512
Reaction score
13,296
Points
2,180
equal to is not the same as supreme.

besides she's a nutter.
You explain too. See post #56.
so how did women getting the right to vote - affect *you*? being 'allowed' to get birth control without their husband's consent - affect *you* ? the right to own property - affect *you*?

how did blacks, no longer having a separate bathroom & water fountain - affect *you*?

how about donny's 'traditional' marriage AFTER marriage AFTER marriage... knocking up wife #2 b4 being divorced from wife #1 - affect *you* or your right to practice *your* religion? how about rush limbaugh's FOUR 'traditional' marriages?

are you connecting the dots yet?
Yes. Liberals suck. Dot Dot Dot
You fucking articulate
You have not yet explained why a non-heterosexual is not considered an American in the face of current law.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top