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

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.
 


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.

If you say so Boss. You the Boss. You got all you shit together.Can't argue with the truth of God and Conservatives. Ya all have been so kind to the malined and downtrodden over the decades we worship at your filty feet
 
Last edited:
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.

i know that it will not affect my life, nor my heterosexuality, nor my marriage of 35 years in the least. nor yours.

so there ya go.
 
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 ?
 
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?
 


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.


LOL... sodom & gomorrah....

go ahead & use that bible passage to condemn the homogays....

did you know after that same passage - lot went on to have sex with his 2 daughters? LOL!!!!! ya............ what a student of the bible you are!
 
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?
 
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?
Ringtone is tone deaf
 
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.
1614896260974.png
1614896291005.png
 
Last edited:
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?
Ringtone is tone deaf

deaf dumb & blind. & by dumb - i mean stoooooooooooopid.
 
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.
 
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 ??!
 
i know that it will not affect my life, nor my heterosexuality, nor my marriage of 35 years in the least. nor yours.

so there ya go.

Maybe the problem is overload. Let's try one at a time.

So you explain how the ideological discrimination of free-association relative to sexual behavior and mores is necessarily evil or unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
i know that it will not affect my life, nor my heterosexuality, nor my marriage of 35 years in the least. nor yours.

so there ya go.

Maybe the problem is overload. Let's try one at a time.

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.

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top