No Cake for You

[JoeB131]

Exactly, you didn't change your mind because of what SCOTUS said. Your standard was you believe SCOTUS over me. I pointed out, no, SCOTUS said what you wanted to hear and I didn't and asked what you believed SCOTUS about because they said it. Giving an example of a ruling you don't like but you agree legally they were correct isn't what I asked.

Guy, again, you are going around in circles here. The 9 best legal minds- well, 8 and Uncle Tom Clarance - know better what the constitution says than a Libertarian Loon on a message board.

 

[JoeB131]

You are an idiot. I responded to the dyke starting to project her emotions into me again. You're posting in response to that, duh, you don't get it. I know you don't, Joe, I know you don't...

Guy, only guy I see getting 'worked up" it the one who lives in mortal fear the government might compel him to do the right thing.

 

[Seawytch]

Give an example of a SCOTUS ruling you disagreed with that you accepted because the SCOTUS said so.

Citizens United. Stuck with it until Congress does something. But...I don't just snivel about it on a message board. I support, with my wallet, citizens groups that are trying to make campaign finance reforms. I support candidates that support campaign finance reform.

You just said you still oppose the ruling. The point made was he thinks what he does because the SCOTUS says so. You just gave an example of a ruling that supports my position. You don't accept it, you want to overturn and circumvent it.

Yes, and? How many times do you need to be wished luck in your endeavor? Challenge them, go ahead...but you don't. You just whine and snivel here about how unfair the world is that you don't get to discriminate against gays in a few places.

God the tears again. Seriously, this is just an Internet discussion. You seriously need to stay out of political forums if you are going to keep losing it like that. Take deeps breaths and try to calm down. Not everyone is going to agree with you, that's how the world works.

You really need to get your emotion meter checked. It's WAY off.

Yes, it's an internet discussion. That's all you seem able to do, "discuss" the issue (whine, snivel and cry about "tyranny"). You don't actually DO anything.

The anti gay bigots are at least honest and ambitious. They are trying to pass their special little "we hate the gays...it's our religion" carve outs. You're not doing anything to get rid of these "tyrannical laws" that have been on the books since 1964 (And nobody cared until some places added gays to the protections afforded race and religion.)

 

[Seawytch]

Read what I wrote in a response to a later post.

Like most other violations the first is x, the second as a multiple of x and so on

I seriously think Joe actually would like the death penalty for parking tickets.

Ravi and I, who never agree on anything, agreed that 150K for this, a first offense, made no sense.

Nobody gets a parking ticket for being a hater.

again, the idea here is deterence. It's not just to put Melissa's Cakes out of business, which is a good thing, but to let all the other Christian Assholes know that they can't do this, not even once.

Again, I've known gays who've been fired from their jobs for being gay, I've known gays who've been beaten up.

Having to bake a cake you'll receive money for baking after you promised to bake cakes for money - this is not an infringement.

You must also know people that have gotten the death sentence for parking tickets?

Two points.

A small business feels real pain with a fine that escalates if they violate again. 10 cakes at a retail cost could be 2500 to 7500. It hurts the owners but probably not enough to cost innocent employees jobs or pay (I know you could give a shit about them)

Also, you speak of haters. Seriously, your rant was nothing but hate.

Ironic

How about they try not violating the law...and they don't get fined. BTW, they haven't actually gotten fined yet so you're hyperbolically speculating unnecessarily.

 

[kaz]

Exactly, you didn't change your mind because of what SCOTUS said. Your standard was you believe SCOTUS over me. I pointed out, no, SCOTUS said what you wanted to hear and I didn't and asked what you believed SCOTUS about because they said it. Giving an example of a ruling you don't like but you agree legally they were correct isn't what I asked.

Guy, again, you are going around in circles here. The 9 best legal minds- well, 8 and Uncle Tom Clarance - know better what the constitution says than a Libertarian Loon on a message board.

And you're going nowhere. Your standard that you are believing the SCOTUS over me is as I pointed out a lie

 

[Seawytch]

God the tears again. Seriously, this is just an Internet discussion. You seriously need to stay out of political forums if you are going to keep losing it like that. Take deeps breaths and try to calm down. Not everyone is going to agree with you, that's how the world works.

Only guy I see crying here is you because the courts are making homophobes bake cakes.

You are an idiot. I responded to the dyke starting to project her emotions into me again. You're posting in response to that, duh, you don't get it. I know you don't, Joe, I know you don't...

Dyke? That's the best you can come up with?

 

[kaz]

You are an idiot. I responded to the dyke starting to project her emotions into me again. You're posting in response to that, duh, you don't get it. I know you don't, Joe, I know you don't...

Guy, only guy I see getting 'worked up" it the one who lives in mortal fear the government might compel him to do the right thing.

That's because you're like all liberals functionally illiterate when it comes to reading arguments you disagree with. I directly responded to a post she started going into emotions to mock her. You didn't read what I wrote and you took my sarcasm seriously. You are just continuing to show what an idiot you are. Seriously.

 

[kaz]

You really need to get your emotion meter checked. It's WAY off

Back at you, imbecile. That's the point I was making TO YOU. And like Joe the Bigot you can't process sarcasm and recognize when you are being mocked. Now that's a meter you need checked. Over and over sarcasm is swish, right over your head. Even when I am directly responding to the post I am mocking you for.

 

[JoeB131]

And you're going nowhere. Your standard that you are believing the SCOTUS over me is as I pointed out a lie

Now you are just babbling. Clearly, there are no Libertarian Nuts on SCOTUS with your view of the Commerce Clause.

There's probably a good reason for that.

 

[Seawytch]

You are an idiot. I responded to the dyke starting to project her emotions into me again. You're posting in response to that, duh, you don't get it. I know you don't, Joe, I know you don't...

Guy, only guy I see getting 'worked up" it the one who lives in mortal fear the government might compel him to do the right thing.

That's because you're like all liberals functionally illiterate when it comes to reading arguments you disagree with. I directly responded to a post she started going into emotions to mock her. You didn't read what I wrote and you took my sarcasm seriously. You are just continuing to show what an idiot you are. Seriously.

Poor, poor Kaz...

 

[JoeB131]

Back at you, imbecile. That's the point I was making TO YOU. And like Joe the Bigot you can't process sarcasm and recognize when you are being mocked. Now that's a meter you need checked. Over and over sarcasm is swish, right over your head. Even when I am directly responding to the post I am mocking you for.

Or, you are just a crazy person with OCD.

 

[kaz]

God the tears again. Seriously, this is just an Internet discussion. You seriously need to stay out of political forums if you are going to keep losing it like that. Take deeps breaths and try to calm down. Not everyone is going to agree with you, that's how the world works.

Only guy I see crying here is you because the courts are making homophobes bake cakes.

You are an idiot. I responded to the dyke starting to project her emotions into me again. You're posting in response to that, duh, you don't get it. I know you don't, Joe, I know you don't...

Dyke? That's the best you can come up with?

Whiner? Is whiner the best you can come up with?

 

[Seawytch]

How is it a non sequitur to ask you if you understand the rulings you are inquiring about.? You asked where the SCOTUS found the authority to rule PA laws Constitutional. I provided it. Do you or do you not understand the ruling. They ruled 9-0 by the way.

It's a non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with what I argued. It's a rat hole you want me to follow you down. Pass.

You asked where the SCOTUS found the authority...its in their 9-0 ruling. (SPOILER ALERT: Commerce Clause)

Exactly, I asked where the SCOTUS has the authority based on the measuring stick, the Constitution. You have no answer, so you keep asking if I understand their ruling. That isn't the question.

You don't know, you aren't even trying to answer the question, you just keep setting at the edge of a rat hole running down it trying to get me to follow you. When I don't, you come back out and run down again hoping I'll follow you this time. I don't, so you're back again...

I don't know how to make it any simpler...commerce clause c-o-m-m-e-r-c-e c-l-a-u-s-e

Okay...spelled it out. If you still don't understand, nobody can help you.

Not that it is even relevant since none of the laws protecting gays are at a Federal level. States rights.

The commerce clause is trade between the states. What does buying a cake from your local baker have to do with trade between the States?

That falls within the states right to regulate intrastate commerce (10th Amendment) Mr. "States Rights".

 

[kaz]

You are an idiot. I responded to the dyke starting to project her emotions into me again. You're posting in response to that, duh, you don't get it. I know you don't, Joe, I know you don't...

Guy, only guy I see getting 'worked up" it the one who lives in mortal fear the government might compel him to do the right thing.

That's because you're like all liberals functionally illiterate when it comes to reading arguments you disagree with. I directly responded to a post she started going into emotions to mock her. You didn't read what I wrote and you took my sarcasm seriously. You are just continuing to show what an idiot you are. Seriously.

Poor, poor Kaz...

Strawman

 

[Seawytch]

God the tears again. Seriously, this is just an Internet discussion. You seriously need to stay out of political forums if you are going to keep losing it like that. Take deeps breaths and try to calm down. Not everyone is going to agree with you, that's how the world works.

Only guy I see crying here is you because the courts are making homophobes bake cakes.

You are an idiot. I responded to the dyke starting to project her emotions into me again. You're posting in response to that, duh, you don't get it. I know you don't, Joe, I know you don't...

Dyke? That's the best you can come up with?

Whiner? Is whiner the best you can come up with?

No. I used sniveling too. How about bellyache? That's was my grandma's favorite.

 

[WorldWatcher]

...a crazy person with OCD.

Actually that should be "Compulsive Disorder for Obsessives" which would be CDO since the letters must be arranged alphabetically.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

It's a non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with what I argued. It's a rat hole you want me to follow you down. Pass.

You asked where the SCOTUS found the authority...its in their 9-0 ruling. (SPOILER ALERT: Commerce Clause)

Exactly, I asked where the SCOTUS has the authority based on the measuring stick, the Constitution. You have no answer, so you keep asking if I understand their ruling. That isn't the question.

You don't know, you aren't even trying to answer the question, you just keep setting at the edge of a rat hole running down it trying to get me to follow you. When I don't, you come back out and run down again hoping I'll follow you this time. I don't, so you're back again...

I don't know how to make it any simpler...commerce clause c-o-m-m-e-r-c-e c-l-a-u-s-e

Okay...spelled it out. If you still don't understand, nobody can help you.

Not that it is even relevant since none of the laws protecting gays are at a Federal level. States rights.

The commerce clause is trade between the states. What does buying a cake from your local baker have to do with trade between the States?

That falls within the states right to regulate intrastate commerce (10th Amendment) Mr. "States Rights".

Yes, it does. What I argued was when you said was it was the commerce clause, which doesn't allow the feds to regulate intrastate commerce. Typical liberal, you can't just admit you were wrong.

 

[kaz]

God the tears again. Seriously, this is just an Internet discussion. You seriously need to stay out of political forums if you are going to keep losing it like that. Take deeps breaths and try to calm down. Not everyone is going to agree with you, that's how the world works.

Only guy I see crying here is you because the courts are making homophobes bake cakes.

You are an idiot. I responded to the dyke starting to project her emotions into me again. You're posting in response to that, duh, you don't get it. I know you don't, Joe, I know you don't...

Dyke? That's the best you can come up with?

Whiner? Is whiner the best you can come up with?

No. I used sniveling too. How about bellyache? That's was my grandma's favorite.

Your obsession with emotions is getting really, really dull

 

[Seawytch]

You asked where the SCOTUS found the authority...its in their 9-0 ruling. (SPOILER ALERT: Commerce Clause)

Exactly, I asked where the SCOTUS has the authority based on the measuring stick, the Constitution. You have no answer, so you keep asking if I understand their ruling. That isn't the question.

You don't know, you aren't even trying to answer the question, you just keep setting at the edge of a rat hole running down it trying to get me to follow you. When I don't, you come back out and run down again hoping I'll follow you this time. I don't, so you're back again...

I don't know how to make it any simpler...commerce clause c-o-m-m-e-r-c-e c-l-a-u-s-e

Okay...spelled it out. If you still don't understand, nobody can help you.

Not that it is even relevant since none of the laws protecting gays are at a Federal level. States rights.

The commerce clause is trade between the states. What does buying a cake from your local baker have to do with trade between the States?

That falls within the states right to regulate intrastate commerce (10th Amendment) Mr. "States Rights".

Yes, it does. What I argued was when you said was it was the commerce clause, which doesn't allow the feds to regulate intrastate commerce. Typical liberal, you can't just admit you were wrong.

The commerce clause does allow the feds to regulate interstate commerce.

The Court held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local incidents of commerce, and that the Civil Right Act of 1964 passed constitutional muster.

Now, you may disagree with the ruling, but that IS the ruling. What can you do about it? You could lobby Congress to get rid of Title II of the CRA. What do you give the chances?

Again, are you allowed to challenge it in court after being so dismissive and derisive of gays taking their grievances to court?

 

[kaz]

The commerce clause does allow the feds to regulate interstate commerce.

No shit Dick Tracey. Arguing a point not in contention does what for the discussion exactly?