So a private citizen can’t pick and choose who they want to live with?

[manifold]

I tried to be civil about this but you had to take the low road. Ok. Fine with me.
OK Roger Ramjet......Here is over 150 years of legal precedent that supports the very thing you deny exists. .

Ok, stop right there artard (I certainly did).

I didnt' deny that the freedom exists fuckstain.

I did, and still deny that the EXACT FUCKING PHRASE appears in the text of The Constitution.

Do you REALLY not see the fucking difference? Really?

It always comes as no surprise when one is backed into a corner of their own doing they resort to insults and other vile crap.
Nice going. Here's your sign.

Go read up on sarcasm dipshit.

And then read this thread and maybe, just maybe you'll get the joke.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/137804-odonnell-questions-separation-of-church-state.html

Or you can continue being the joke. Up to you.

 

[manifold]

Constitution sates freedom OF religion. It does not state freedom FROM religion.

What is freedom FROM religion?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I believe the Fair Housing Act exempts this kind of rental from being subject to certain anti-discrimination:

Civil Rights Division Home Page

See section 803 - 2.

(2) After December 31, 1968, to all dwellings covered by paragraph (1) and to all other dwellings except as exempted by subsection (b) of this section.

(b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--

(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner: Provided, That such private individual owner does not own more than three such single-family houses at any one time:

...2)rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence.





...or not. lol

 

[Care4all]

I believe the Fair Housing Act exempts this kind of rental from being subject to certain anti-discrimination:

Civil Rights Division Home Page

See section 803 - 2.

(2) After December 31, 1968, to all dwellings covered by paragraph (1) and to all other dwellings except as exempted by subsection (b) of this section.

(b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--

(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner: Provided, That such private individual owner does not own more than three such single-family houses at any one time:

...2)rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence.





...or not. lol

B-I-N-G-O

THAT'S what i had thought initially.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Constitution sates freedom OF religion. It does not state freedom FROM religion.

What is freedom FROM religion?

The freedom thing? Means, in part, keep your organized religious institution away from me in the tax-supported public square. That's why Santa Fe ISD in Texas got slapped down by the Supreme Court twice and is now subject to a $100,000 forfeiture bond if its administrators get stupid again.

 

[nraforlife]

two fags is not a marriage.

My marriage license says differently.

A piece of paper saying a turd is chocolate does not change the taste of shit.

 

[bodecea]

One of the things that few people, even run of the mill gays don't understand, is that the eventual goal of gay marriage is legal status between multiple persons, pets, inanimate objects, etc. Now, that is not to say that I believe for 1 second that average gay couples seek that goal, rather, I'm simply stating that this is the goal of some of their leadership as they have stated in the past.

Answer me this...how does NOT having gay marriage stop marriage between multiple persons, pets, inanimate objects, etc.? TIA

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ozmar, it has nothing to do with fragile. It has to do with character: yours is defunct.

You know nothing about me, and let's leave it at that. When you get down to attacking character based on words exchanged in reference to a news item, you have gone too far.

Only people with no character maintain that they can run their gums unchecked without it revealing anything about their character.

Told you you were out of your depth here, needledick.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think it's hilarious that some of the conservatives in this thread want to scream about property rights.

Why?

Because you sat there and didn't oppose your conservative supreme court members when they rammed through the decision to let city governments TAKE private property through eminent domain to give it to other private interests. (Take from land owner to give to Wal-Mart for economic expansion)

Where is the common sense...where is the outrage...when shit like this happened under Bush and Scalia?

Excuse me? We didn't? What fucking rock were you under while conservatives were SCREAMING about that decision, which was NOT by "our conservative SC members"? Did you beam up to the mother ship for a few months?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think it's hilarious that some of the conservatives in this thread want to scream about property rights.

Why?

Because you sat there and didn't oppose your conservative supreme court members when they rammed through the decision to let city governments TAKE private property through eminent domain to give it to other private interests. (Take from land owner to give to Wal-Mart for economic expansion)

Where is the common sense...where is the outrage...when shit like this happened under Bush and Scalia?

So where's the link to that? I'd like to respond.

Look up "Kelo v. New London". It will show you that it was a 5-4 decision, with Sandra Day O'Oconnor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting. I have no idea what "conservative SC members" he's imagining here that agreed with that decision.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think it's hilarious that some of the conservatives in this thread want to scream about property rights.

Why?

Because you sat there and didn't oppose your conservative supreme court members when they rammed through the decision to let city governments TAKE private property through eminent domain to give it to other private interests. (Take from land owner to give to Wal-Mart for economic expansion)

Where is the common sense...where is the outrage...when shit like this happened under Bush and Scalia?

So where's the link to that? I'd like to respond.

Look up "Kelo v. New London". It will show you that it was a 5-4 decision, with Sandra Day O'Oconnor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting. I have no idea what "conservative SC members" he's imagining here that agreed with that decision.

The center and the left on the court voted in the affirmative: a terrible decision that threatens all property holder interests.

 

[Ravi]

Ozmar, it has nothing to do with fragile. It has to do with character: yours is defunct.

You know nothing about me, and let's leave it at that. When you get down to attacking character based on words exchanged in reference to a news item, you have gone too far.

Only people with no character maintain that they can run their gums unchecked without it revealing anything about their character.

Told you you were out of your depth here, needledick.

While I agree he acted like an idiot, you have no room to talk...your character is lower than the bottom of a toilet.

 

[Ravi]

Right wing is more bible beleiving which God says marriage is between man and woman, anything else is an abomination. So it is not hypocrisy, it is the truth. Do not like it, too bad, get right in the head.

No, it's hypocrisy. The bible isn't the rule of law...and in another thread people are melting down over someone choosing a roommate.

The issues are somewhat alike and yet it is always amusing to watch rightwingers come down on opposite sides depending on the question.

I know this is difficult for you, Ravi, but.... to Christians, the Bible is as valid to how we live as the law of the land.

Having said that, I have no problem with gay marriage - as I have always said. On the understanding that the Churches are left to decide for themselves who they will or will not marry within their own faiths.

Personally, I don't see it as a federal government issue. Let each state decide for itself and go for it. Who cares?

Thanks for the ever reliable non sequitor.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You know nothing about me, and let's leave it at that. When you get down to attacking character based on words exchanged in reference to a news item, you have gone too far.

Only people with no character maintain that they can run their gums unchecked without it revealing anything about their character.

Told you you were out of your depth here, needledick.

While I agree he acted like an idiot, you have no room to talk...your character is lower than the bottom of a toilet.

Where was I when I started caring what ignorant trash like you thinks, and why didn't someone tell me your opinion had begun mattering?

 

[Father Time]

"Christians shouldn’t live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians,"

Why must these people lie about what's actually happening? She is being punished for discriminating, not for practicing her faith. Big difference.

That aside, I think she should be able to pick and choose her roommates based on whatever criteria she wants.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

One of the things that few people, even run of the mill gays don't understand, is that the eventual goal of gay marriage is legal status between multiple persons, pets, inanimate objects, etc.

Based on what evidence?

 

[2Parties]

I don't really care about government defined marriage (and I'm for everyone being treated equally) but at the same time this is where the dictionary definition of what marriage comes into play. You can't choose who you want to marry if the action you are taking isn't what marriage is.

I could call me driving to the store to pick up a gallon of milk "marriage", or the process of obtaining a gun permit "marriage" or posting a message on a forum "marriage".

Just because I want to call something "marriage" doesn't make it so.

 

[manifold]

...Ozmar has completely pwned himself in this thread...

If all else fails, ad hominem.

You're a moron.

Based on your stance here, your morals and understanding of the world we live in leave much to be desired.

When you get down to attacking character based on words exchanged in reference to a news item, you have gone too far.

I say he should go for the trifecta.

 

[RW&B]

"Christians shouldn’t live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians,"

Why must these people lie about what's actually happening? She is being punished for discriminating, not for practicing her faith. Big difference.

That aside, I think she should be able to pick and choose her roommates based on whatever criteria she wants.

While I agree that "she should be able to pick and choose her roommates based on whatever criteria she wants" when she put it in writing she's discriminating. I think it's a bullshit case, but apparently someone at that church is nothing put a pussy for filing the suit against a fellow church member. The ad could have easily just said "Roommate Wanted" then if she didn't like someone, tell them that she found someone else. Businesses do it all the time.

 

[Ozmar]

two fags is not a marriage.

My marriage license says differently.

A piece of paper saying a turd is chocolate does not change the taste of shit.

You eat turds?