Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[beagle9]

Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak. The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...

I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.

I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby

You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.

Get that fainting couch ready.

Kennedy? LOL! Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area. Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.

Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak. The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...

I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again. As granting a woman the right to discriminate against anyone she wishes based on religion essentially dismantled all PA laws and anti-discrimination laws.

Laws which serve to promote mental disorder are illegitimate, as such undermines the objective public interests. So, where PA laws serve to promote such, they should be dismantled.

Yeah, we're not dismantling Public Accommodation laws because you don't like gay people.

Ya see, for law to be valid, it must be objective... and there is no means for a law which promotes chaos to serve the objective interests of the collective. Just as normalizing abnormality cannot serve the interests of those afflicted with such perverse reasoning and by extension, such cannot serve the whole of the community.

Agreement with you isn't a standard of objectivity. As you aren't objective.

So what else have you got?

The harm such brings to the individual is devastating, the harm such brings the community is profound, the potential for such is catastrophic. Tolerating such is something well beyond foolish.

Is this the part where you offer up your fantasies of civil war and the collapse of society unless we start persecuting gay people?

Or the part where you tell us if gays don't 'sit down and shut the **** up' that they'll be subject to a war that 'will make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'.

Alas, your ilk only want to hurt people when it costs you nothing and there are no consequences. And your 'war' involves consequences. Which is why both you and gay folks will remain pristinely safe from one another.

Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs? What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?

 

[Silhouette]

Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs? What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?

A church, remember, is nothing more than a congregation of individual Christians who exercise their faith in everyday life. First Amendment stuff.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak. The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...

I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.

I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby

You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.

Get that fainting couch ready.

Kennedy? LOL! Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area. Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.

Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.
Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Like I have said every time before- not one word in there about homosexuals.

Oh, you want me to include Romans 1 for emphasis? OK...

Oh I know what Romans says.

But Jude doesn't say anything about homosexuals- contrary to what you keep claiming.

It's called interpretation, and I know you can do it, I just know you can or can you?

It's also called legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

Even if your bible explicitly forbade selling cake to homosexuals, public accommodations laws would remain valid and Constitutional, because the sole focus and intent of such laws would be to regulate commerce, not 'disadvantage' Christians.

If your bible explicitly forbade homosexuals from marrying, this too would be legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, because subjective religious dogma is completely devoid of legal merit, and cannot be used to 'justify' laws seeking to deny gay Americans their civil rights in violation of the First Amendment.

 

[beagle9]

Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak. The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...

I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.

I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby

You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.

Get that fainting couch ready.

Kennedy? LOL! Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area. Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.

Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.
Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.

What about when Christians are being attacked, where are you then? No where to be found huh.

 

[beagle9]

Like I have said every time before- not one word in there about homosexuals.

Oh, you want me to include Romans 1 for emphasis? OK...

Oh I know what Romans says.

But Jude doesn't say anything about homosexuals- contrary to what you keep claiming.

It's called interpretation, and I know you can do it, I just know you can or can you?

It's also called legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

Even if your bible explicitly forbade selling cake to homosexuals, public accommodations laws would remain valid and Constitutional, because the sole focus and intent of such laws would be to regulate commerce, not 'disadvantage' Christians.

If your bible explicitly forbade homosexuals from marrying, this too would be legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, because subjective religious dogma is completely devoid of legal merit, and cannot be used to 'justify' laws seeking to deny gay Americans their civil rights in violation of the First Amendment.

Their civil right is to force a baker to bake a cake for their wedding, even if it violates his freedom to practice his religion in which tells him that such a thing is to aid and abed sin , and this by the endorsement of through his agreeing to empower it by going along with it? Think about all the other scenario's or implications this might have or how it could easily fall into the same line of thinking if people become forced to go along with anything and everything now.

 

[Syriusly]

Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak. The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...

I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.

I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby

You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.

Get that fainting couch ready.

Kennedy? LOL! Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area. Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.

Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.
Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.

What about when Christians are being attacked, where are you then? No where to be found huh.

What Christians are being attacked in the U.S.?

In regards to this thread, Christians are expected to follow the same law as everyone else.

That is not an attack.

 

[Syriusly]

Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs? What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?

A church, remember, is nothing more than a congregation of individual Christians who exercise their faith in everyday life. First Amendment stuff.

And a church is not a business.

And a business is not a church.

 

[Syriusly]

Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak. The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...

I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.

I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby

You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.

Get that fainting couch ready.

Kennedy? LOL! Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area. Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.

Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak. The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...

I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again. As granting a woman the right to discriminate against anyone she wishes based on religion essentially dismantled all PA laws and anti-discrimination laws.

Laws which serve to promote mental disorder are illegitimate, as such undermines the objective public interests. So, where PA laws serve to promote such, they should be dismantled.

Yeah, we're not dismantling Public Accommodation laws because you don't like gay people.

Ya see, for law to be valid, it must be objective... and there is no means for a law which promotes chaos to serve the objective interests of the collective. Just as normalizing abnormality cannot serve the interests of those afflicted with such perverse reasoning and by extension, such cannot serve the whole of the community.

Agreement with you isn't a standard of objectivity. As you aren't objective.

So what else have you got?

The harm such brings to the individual is devastating, the harm such brings the community is profound, the potential for such is catastrophic. Tolerating such is something well beyond foolish.

Is this the part where you offer up your fantasies of civil war and the collapse of society unless we start persecuting gay people?

Or the part where you tell us if gays don't 'sit down and shut the **** up' that they'll be subject to a war that 'will make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'.

Alas, your ilk only want to hurt people when it costs you nothing and there are no consequences. And your 'war' involves consequences. Which is why both you and gay folks will remain pristinely safe from one another.

Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs? What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?

How are 'gay's attacking' when they are asking that the same law that also applies to Christians be enforced?

 

[Syriusly]

Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak. The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...

I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.

I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby

You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.

Get that fainting couch ready.

Kennedy? LOL! Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area. Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.

Oh I am certain you will find any ruling you don't agree with 'illegitimate'.

But you are irrelevant.

 

[beagle9]

I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby

You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.

Get that fainting couch ready.

Kennedy? LOL! Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area. Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.

Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.
Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.

What about when Christians are being attacked, where are you then? No where to be found huh.

What Christians are being attacked in the U.S.?

In regards to this thread, Christians are expected to follow the same law as everyone else.

That is not an attack.

Phil Robertson comes to mind quickly, and the lady who was a former Miss. America contestant, and the Chic Filet CEO. Your kidding me that you don't know these things right ?

 

[beagle9]

I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby

You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.

Get that fainting couch ready.

Kennedy? LOL! Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area. Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.

Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak. The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...

I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again. As granting a woman the right to discriminate against anyone she wishes based on religion essentially dismantled all PA laws and anti-discrimination laws.

Laws which serve to promote mental disorder are illegitimate, as such undermines the objective public interests. So, where PA laws serve to promote such, they should be dismantled.

Yeah, we're not dismantling Public Accommodation laws because you don't like gay people.

Ya see, for law to be valid, it must be objective... and there is no means for a law which promotes chaos to serve the objective interests of the collective. Just as normalizing abnormality cannot serve the interests of those afflicted with such perverse reasoning and by extension, such cannot serve the whole of the community.

Agreement with you isn't a standard of objectivity. As you aren't objective.

So what else have you got?

The harm such brings to the individual is devastating, the harm such brings the community is profound, the potential for such is catastrophic. Tolerating such is something well beyond foolish.

Is this the part where you offer up your fantasies of civil war and the collapse of society unless we start persecuting gay people?

Or the part where you tell us if gays don't 'sit down and shut the **** up' that they'll be subject to a war that 'will make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'.

Alas, your ilk only want to hurt people when it costs you nothing and there are no consequences. And your 'war' involves consequences. Which is why both you and gay folks will remain pristinely safe from one another.

Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs? What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?

How are 'gay's attacking' when they are asking that the same law that also applies to Christians be enforced?

Well what I've heard is when the question is asked to certain people if they are OK with gay marriage, and they don't answer correctly according to the one asking, then they are attacked. It was hoped for that Chic Filet would be boycotted, and that Phil of Duck Dynasty would be run off the air of A&E (or) that the crown would be taken from the former Miss America contestant Carrie Prejean (Miss California), if she would have won (or) to be disqualified by Trump because of her stance when asked.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak. The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...

I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.

I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby

You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.

Get that fainting couch ready.

Kennedy? LOL! Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area. Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.

Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.
Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.

LOL! Would you bet you life that Kennedy has never had a cock on his ass? And I seriously doubt that Kagan has not gone more than a couple of weeks without a throughly flossing.

You're welcome to deny it, but Kennedy lack the masculinity of PeeWee Herman and Kagan is the embodiment every bull-dyke, ever.

Neither of them should be allowed IN THE BUILDING where issues regarding The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality are being considered.

The Booze-Hound has already stated how she intends to vote, so where objectivity has any kinship with law, Ginsburg is quite literally disqualified from hearing arguments.

Nothing

 

[Jarlaxle]

By forcing a member of a church to participate, are you not forcing the church to participate ?

No.

If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?

Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?

These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.

They don't?

LOL.......

Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.

If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.

When have you heard of any Christians in this nation needing protection with PA laws ?.

So do you think that Christians do not deserve to be protected under Public Accomodation laws?

If you look at the history of PA laws, they are clearly intended to protect a historically discriminated minority from the majority- in religion that would in our history include among others Jews and Mormons.

But those same laws protect Christians equally.

Do you think we:
a) should eliminate all PA laws?
b) eliminate the religion as a category in PA laws or
c) just say there is no need to protect Christians in PA laws?

A.

 

[beagle9]

No.

If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?

Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?

These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.

They don't?

LOL.......

Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.

If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.

When have you heard of any Christians in this nation needing protection with PA laws ?.

So do you think that Christians do not deserve to be protected under Public Accomodation laws?

If you look at the history of PA laws, they are clearly intended to protect a historically discriminated minority from the majority- in religion that would in our history include among others Jews and Mormons.

But those same laws protect Christians equally.

Do you think we:
a) should eliminate all PA laws?
b) eliminate the religion as a category in PA laws or
c) just say there is no need to protect Christians in PA laws?

A.

Yep, but the ONLY ONE that should remain (IMHO) is the one concerning ones race, and this is due to if we feel that as citizens maybe we haven't gotten there quite yet in the nation concerning such an issue (or) if the latest Al Sharpton and crews antics over a few incidents in which they were wrong about, may have caused a re-opening of the old racist ideology among some people who would use that to try and justify discrimination all because of.

We need to keep the PA law concerning race open I'm thinking, but maybe the blacks should be best to decide that one, and this in evidence of possible incidents that may be still happening in which they can prove as such. I know that it isn't a major problem much anymore I'm thinking, but what do you think Jaraxle? I say all others should go, and business owners should have more freedom to run their businesses like he or she wants to. No shirt and no shoes -No service. Disruption to other customers -No service. Creating an incident that was un-called for, and threatens the business -No service. Demanding things that are not ethical or moral according to a business owners faith, business ethics and charter - No service. Demanding services outside of the scope of the business model or set up - No service. Once people know where to take their business too, and owners know what to expect from their customers who understand what they are dealing with, then everything would have a better flow to it. I think the nation would begin to move in a forward direction again, instead of being bogged down with the baggage it has been bogged down with for years now. Once freedom is restored, then people will invest and maybe begin start ups once again in many fields of interest that otherwise wouldn't have before

 

[Syriusly]

Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak. The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...

I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.

I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby

You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.

Get that fainting couch ready.

Kennedy? LOL! Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area. Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.

Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.
Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.

LOL! Would you bet you life that Kennedy has never had a cock on his ass? And I seriously doubt that Kagan has not gone more than a couple of weeks without a throughly flossing.
g

Why is it that Conservatives can think of nothing but sex?

Keyes is clearly obsessed with wondering about who has had a cock up his ass......

 

[Syriusly]

You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.

Get that fainting couch ready.

Kennedy? LOL! Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area. Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.

I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again. As granting a woman the right to discriminate against anyone she wishes based on religion essentially dismantled all PA laws and anti-discrimination laws.

Laws which serve to promote mental disorder are illegitimate, as such undermines the objective public interests. So, where PA laws serve to promote such, they should be dismantled.

Yeah, we're not dismantling Public Accommodation laws because you don't like gay people.

Ya see, for law to be valid, it must be objective... and there is no means for a law which promotes chaos to serve the objective interests of the collective. Just as normalizing abnormality cannot serve the interests of those afflicted with such perverse reasoning and by extension, such cannot serve the whole of the community.

Agreement with you isn't a standard of objectivity. As you aren't objective.

So what else have you got?

The harm such brings to the individual is devastating, the harm such brings the community is profound, the potential for such is catastrophic. Tolerating such is something well beyond foolish.

Is this the part where you offer up your fantasies of civil war and the collapse of society unless we start persecuting gay people?

Or the part where you tell us if gays don't 'sit down and shut the **** up' that they'll be subject to a war that 'will make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'.

Alas, your ilk only want to hurt people when it costs you nothing and there are no consequences. And your 'war' involves consequences. Which is why both you and gay folks will remain pristinely safe from one another.

Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs? What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?

How are 'gay's attacking' when they are asking that the same law that also applies to Christians be enforced?

Well what I've heard is when the question is asked to certain people if they are OK with gay marriage, and they don't answer correctly according to the one asking, then they are attacked. It was hoped for that Chic Filet would be boycotted, and that Phil of Duck Dynasty would be run off the air of A&E (or) that the crown would be taken from the former Miss America contestant Carrie Prejean (Miss California), if she would have won (or) to be disqualified by Trump because of her stance when asked.

Okay- if you want to go there- you are then admitting that Christians have been attacking Gays?

When Christians demand boycotts of business's that treat Gays equally? Boycotts for hiring a lesbian spokesperson?

IF you want to claim that those are examples of Christians being attacked- then in the same logic- there are examples of Christians attacking homosexuals.

 

[beagle9]

Kennedy? LOL! Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area. Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.

Laws which serve to promote mental disorder are illegitimate, as such undermines the objective public interests. So, where PA laws serve to promote such, they should be dismantled.

Yeah, we're not dismantling Public Accommodation laws because you don't like gay people.

Ya see, for law to be valid, it must be objective... and there is no means for a law which promotes chaos to serve the objective interests of the collective. Just as normalizing abnormality cannot serve the interests of those afflicted with such perverse reasoning and by extension, such cannot serve the whole of the community.

Agreement with you isn't a standard of objectivity. As you aren't objective.

So what else have you got?

The harm such brings to the individual is devastating, the harm such brings the community is profound, the potential for such is catastrophic. Tolerating such is something well beyond foolish.

Is this the part where you offer up your fantasies of civil war and the collapse of society unless we start persecuting gay people?

Or the part where you tell us if gays don't 'sit down and shut the **** up' that they'll be subject to a war that 'will make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'.

Alas, your ilk only want to hurt people when it costs you nothing and there are no consequences. And your 'war' involves consequences. Which is why both you and gay folks will remain pristinely safe from one another.

Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs? What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?

How are 'gay's attacking' when they are asking that the same law that also applies to Christians be enforced?

Well what I've heard is when the question is asked to certain people if they are OK with gay marriage, and they don't answer correctly according to the one asking, then they are attacked. It was hoped for that Chic Filet would be boycotted, and that Phil of Duck Dynasty would be run off the air of A&E (or) that the crown would be taken from the former Miss America contestant Carrie Prejean (Miss California), if she would have won (or) to be disqualified by Trump because of her stance when asked.

Okay- if you want to go there- you are then admitting that Christians have been attacking Gays?

When Christians demand boycotts of business's that treat Gays equally? Boycotts for hiring a lesbian spokesperson?

IF you want to claim that those are examples of Christians being attacked- then in the same logic- there are examples of Christians attacking homosexuals.

Not aware of the attacks you speak of, and how can you be sure they were Christians who were allegedly attacking them ? Now a protest of an issue is different from an attack, so just be sure that you are clear on that difference........ Can you be more specific maybe ? Now keep it current as we don't want you to go back to the beginning of time in order to make your points.

You say that Christians demanded boycotts of businesses that were treating gay's equally ?

 

[Jarlaxle]

These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.

They don't?

LOL.......

Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.

If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.

When have you heard of any Christians in this nation needing protection with PA laws ?.

So do you think that Christians do not deserve to be protected under Public Accomodation laws?

If you look at the history of PA laws, they are clearly intended to protect a historically discriminated minority from the majority- in religion that would in our history include among others Jews and Mormons.

But those same laws protect Christians equally.

Do you think we:
a) should eliminate all PA laws?
b) eliminate the religion as a category in PA laws or
c) just say there is no need to protect Christians in PA laws?

A.

Yep, but the ONLY ONE that should remain (IMHO) is the one concerning ones race, and this is due to if we feel that as citizens maybe we haven't gotten there quite yet in the nation concerning such an issue (or) if the latest Al Sharpton and crews antics over a few incidents in which they were wrong about, may have caused a re-opening of the old racist ideology among some people who would use that to try and justify discrimination all because of.

We need to keep the PA law concerning race open I'm thinking, but maybe the blacks should be best to decide that one, and this in evidence of possible incidents that may be still happening in which they can prove as such. I know that it isn't a major problem much anymore I'm thinking, but what do you think Jaraxle? I say all others should go, and business owners should have more freedom to run their businesses like he or she wants to. No shirt and no shoes -No service. Disruption to other customers -No service. Creating an incident that was un-called for, and threatens the business -No service. Demanding things that are not ethical or moral according to a business owners faith, business ethics and charter - No service. Demanding services outside of the scope of the business model or set up - No service. Once people know where to take their business too, and owners know what to expect from their customers who understand what they are dealing with, then everything would have a better flow to it. I think the nation would begin to move in a forward direction again, instead of being bogged down with the baggage it has been bogged down with for years now. Once freedom is restored, then people will invest and maybe begin start ups once again in many fields of interest that otherwise wouldn't have before

I think exactly what I posted: all PA laws should be broomed.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby

You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.

Get that fainting couch ready.

Kennedy? LOL! Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area. Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.

Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.
Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.

LOL! Would you bet you life that Kennedy has never had a cock on his ass? And I seriously doubt that Kagan has not gone more than a couple of weeks without a throughly flossing.
g

Why is it that Conservatives can think of nothing but sex?

Keyes is clearly obsessed with wondering about who has had a cock up his ass......

He isn 't a conservative...he is just a kookburger.