The Gaystapo takes a knockout blow

[Seawytch]

Gee, you'd think you Trump sucking sycophants should have been able to find Ivanna, Melania or Marla cheating on the homunculus orange blob then wouldn't they...but no.

Who says that President Trump doesn’t have evidence of that? Why do you pretend like you know something that you couldn’t possibly have any way of knowing?

The only evidence of cheating is by spanky Donnie...and right after Melania gave birth too. What would Jesus say about that?

Jesus would literally say “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. See, Jesus preached above all else that none of us have a right to judge. That is God’s responsibility and God’s responsibility alone.

Now, because I’m not even in the stratosphere of Jesus, I do judge. And President Trump is an absolute piece of shit in 90% of his life. Especially in his marriages. But he’s show more honor, respect, decency, and integrity in any 10 minutes in the Oval Office than Barack Insane Obama displayed in 8 years.

Oh...and for the record...I fully believe that anyone who has committed adultery is not fit for public office. For starters, if they can’t keep an oath to their own wife, there is no way in hell they’ll be able to keep an oath to their office or their constituents. Additionally, an adulterer poses a tremendous threat to their office. They can have their affair used to blackmail and/or otherwise influence their decisions.

How do you simultaneously suck Trump's cock so ferociously and still think he's not fit for public office?
You really don't get that raging hypocrisy do you? When the first one of these bakers or florists stands up and refuses to serve a serial adulterer like Trump, I'll support their "religious freedom", but they don't. Know what that tells me and every other thinking American? That none of these people deny gays because of their religion. They do it because they are ******* bigots.

 

[g5000]

He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.'"

 

[P@triot]

Jesus would literally say “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. See, Jesus preached above all else that none of us have a right to judge.

And yet here you are, dancing a jig in support of bigots who judge gays.

First of all queer, I clearly stated I’m not in the stratosphere of Jesus. You conveniently edited that part out of my quote here.

Second, there is a monumental difference between government and the Bible. I’m defending their liberty to be what you call “a bigot”. I was not defending their biblical morality to do so (which has not come up).

Third and finally, the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. Therefore is it not biblically “bigoted” to deny and reject it. Oops.

Snowflake...listen closely to me here. You are so far out of your league with me, it’s not even funny. The harder you attempt your “gotcha” moment, the more I expose your ignorance. It really is in your best interest to stop trying to challenge me. I’m too informed and too consistent in my views for you to try a mental tango with.

 

[g5000]

Jesus would literally say “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. See, Jesus preached above all else that none of us have a right to judge.

And yet here you are, dancing a jig in support of bigots who judge gays.

First of all queer, I clearly stated I’m not in the stratosphere of Jesus. You conveniently edited that part out of my quote here.

Second, there is a monumental difference between government and the Bible. I’m defending their liberty to be what you call “a bigot”. I was not defending their biblical morality to do so (which has not come up).

Third and finally, the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. Therefore is it not biblically “bigoted” to deny and reject it. Oops.

Snowflake...listen closely to me here. You are so far out of your league with me, it’s not even funny. The harder you attempt your “gotcha” moment, the more I expose your ignorance. It really is in your best interest to stop trying to challenge me. I’m too informed and too consistent in my views for you to try a mental tango with.

The bigoted wedding planners have made this about their religion. Their religion is in the gutter, chained to Trump.

You decided to celebrate their hypocrisy. Too late now to whine you aren't a fellow traveler, loser.

 

[P@triot]

How do you simultaneously suck Trump's cock so ferociously and still think he's not fit for public office?

That’s just it, snowflake. I don’t. You just proved it for me by admitting that I don’t think he’s fit for office. No adulterer is.

When he’s right - I recognize it. When he’s wrong - I call him out on it. This is a concept you can’t grasp because you are a serial fellatio’er of all things Dumbocrat.

He’s been amazing as President in his first year in office. He’s shown more respect for the U.S. Constitution by rejecting power to the Oval Office and only using Executive Orders and Presidential Memorandums in their constitutionally explicit manner. He has secured the border, cut taxes, created jobs, renegotiated trade agreements to favor the U.S., and a whole lot more.

But, on a personal level, he is a morally corrupt dirt-bag who is not fit to hold office.

 

[P@triot]

Jesus would literally say “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. See, Jesus preached above all else that none of us have a right to judge.

And yet here you are, dancing a jig in support of bigots who judge gays.

First of all queer, I clearly stated I’m not in the stratosphere of Jesus. You conveniently edited that part out of my quote here.

Second, there is a monumental difference between government and the Bible. I’m defending their liberty to be what you call “a bigot”. I was not defending their biblical morality to do so (which has not come up).

Third and finally, the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. Therefore is it not biblically “bigoted” to deny and reject it. Oops.

Snowflake...listen closely to me here. You are so far out of your league with me, it’s not even funny. The harder you attempt your “gotcha” moment, the more I expose your ignorance. It really is in your best interest to stop trying to challenge me. I’m too informed and too consistent in my views for you to try a mental tango with.

Too late now to whine you aren't a fellow traveler, loser.

“Loser”? Really? What are you, in 4th grade?

As I just stated (and your inability to respond proves) you are so far out of your league with me, it’s not even funny. The harder you attempt your “gotcha” moment, the more I expose your ignorance. It really is in your best interest to stop trying to challenge me. I’m too informed and too consistent in my views for you to try a mental tango with.

 

[Dragonlady]

How about a sign that says "All proceeds from same sex marriages will be donated to promote traditional marriage."

That’s not what these people are doing. They’re only donating a portion of the rental fee since they have expenses to pay in hosting an event - staff, equipment, etc.

 

[Dragonlady]

Defeating the gay agenda??? Too late.

It’s never too late. We own the White House, the House, the Senate, and 33 of the 50 states. We own every level of government. And we’re about to add another Supreme Court Justice who will actually uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.

That’s exactly what your right wing conservative court has been doing in upholding rights for gays.

 

[P@triot]

The bigoted wedding planners have made this about their religion. Their religion is in the gutter, chained to Trump.

This is why queers should never discuss the Bible. The Bible is extremely clear that there is no “collective salvation”. Like rational, educated people do in politics, economics, etc., the Bible rejects collectivism in salvation.

Ergo, the wedding planners (who are properly rejecting you queers in accordance with the word of God) are not “chained to Trump”. None of us have any way of knowing if Ivana or Marla committed adultery themselves - thus making President Trump’s divorces and subsequent weddings perfectly acceptable in accordance with the Bible.

Thanks for playing, my angry little queer. You’ve stretched so far on all of this, you’ve pulled a muscle. Better go rest.

 

[P@triot]

How about a sign that says "All proceeds from same sex marriages will be donated to promote traditional marriage."

That’s not what these people are doing. They’re only donating a portion of the rental fee since they have expenses to pay in hosting an event - staff, equipment, etc.

No shit, genius. Tipsy was just making that a suggestion.

 

[P@triot]

Defeating the gay agenda??? Too late.

It’s never too late. We own the White House, the House, the Senate, and 33 of the 50 states. We own every level of government. And we’re about to add another Supreme Court Justice who will actually uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.

That’s exactly what your right wing conservative court has been doing in upholding rights for gays.

The U.S. Constitution limits the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Marriage is not one of them. Therefore, there cannot be a federal mandate on marriage (gay or otherwise). This is why foreigners should not jump into U.S. message boards.

 

[Dragonlady]

Defeating the gay agenda??? Too late.

It’s never too late. We own the White House, the House, the Senate, and 33 of the 50 states. We own every level of government. And we’re about to add another Supreme Court Justice who will actually uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.

That’s exactly what your right wing conservative court has been doing in upholding rights for gays.

The U.S. Constitution limits the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Marriage is not one of them. Therefore, there cannot be a federal mandate on marriage (gay or otherwise). This is why foreigners should not jump into U.S. message boards.

“General welfare” covers a lot of ground.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Against gay marriage? Not me.

Against tariffs? Yes sir.

Against forcing businesses to enter contracts with anyone who demands a contract? That is wrong on many levels.

I am with you on all three points.

Oh yeah...fascist boy here is definitely with BLF on all three.

I am not surprised that you think it is the job of the government to tell people who and who not to marry, that is just what a good little statist should do.

I am also not surprised that you support the government forcing businesses to enter contracts with anyone who demands a contract. Another good little statist thing for you to do.

I believe it is up to the community to decide who should be married or not. until someone can show that a man and a man can be married per the terms of marriage, I'll change my view then. The reason in history why that was not popular, was due to health issues. But hey, you all think you know better than studies on the subject. Me, I have my own views. Marriage is man and woman, period.

And this is why the Govt should not be in the marriage business, to many views none of them are based upon anything but feelings or religious faith, neither of which should be used for making laws.

Who are you to tell two (or more) people in love they cannot be married? Why do you think you have that right?

Get the Govt out of the marriage business, period. Let churches or what have you marry people.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Well, that will teach them!

Funny as hell the people cheering on the govermethn picking and choosing winners and losers with tariffs are against this.

A person with consistent views would be opposed to both.

Against gay marriage? Not me.

Against tariffs? Yes sir.

Against forcing businesses to enter contracts with anyone who demands a contract? That is wrong on many levels.

so it's ok to put a sign on a business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

Ok is not the right word. while I may not agree with it, it should be legal as there is nothing in the Constitution giving the Govt the right to force such a thing on private individuals. It also violates the Equal Protection Clause.

 

[jillian]

Well, that will teach them!

Funny as hell the people cheering on the govermethn picking and choosing winners and losers with tariffs are against this.

A person with consistent views would be opposed to both.

Against gay marriage? Not me.

Against tariffs? Yes sir.

Against forcing businesses to enter contracts with anyone who demands a contract? That is wrong on many levels.

so it's ok to put a sign on a business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

Ok is not the right word. while I may not agree with it, it should be legal as there is nothing in the Constitution giving the Govt the right to force such a thing on private individuals. It also violates the Equal Protection Clause.

if a business is opened to accommodate the public, they have to accommodate ALL of the public.

PERIOD.

they cannot discriminate based on sexual preference, race or religion.

if that's a problem, don't open a business. or they should live in iran or Russia. I'm sure those countries would have no problem with discrimination.

we aren't a jim crow country anymore.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Well, that will teach them!

Funny as hell the people cheering on the govermethn picking and choosing winners and losers with tariffs are against this.

A person with consistent views would be opposed to both.

Against gay marriage? Not me.

Against tariffs? Yes sir.

Against forcing businesses to enter contracts with anyone who demands a contract? That is wrong on many levels.

so it's ok to put a sign on a business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

Ok is not the right word. while I may not agree with it, it should be legal as there is nothing in the Constitution giving the Govt the right to force such a thing on private individuals. It also violates the Equal Protection Clause.

if a business is opened to accommodate the public, they have to accommodate ALL of the public.

PERIOD.

they cannot discriminate based on sexual preference, race or religion.

....

Show me where the Constitution states such a thing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We’ll use it to elect representatives who will restore liberty in America and we’ll use it to support organizations that promote what you despise.

Go right ahead, nutball. You freaks are dying off at a dizzying rate. Get your death knell in , while you have the chance...

 

[Dragonlady]

Well, that will teach them!

Funny as hell the people cheering on the govermethn picking and choosing winners and losers with tariffs are against this.

A person with consistent views would be opposed to both.

Against gay marriage? Not me.

Against tariffs? Yes sir.

Against forcing businesses to enter contracts with anyone who demands a contract? That is wrong on many levels.

so it's ok to put a sign on a business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

Ok is not the right word. while I may not agree with it, it should be legal as there is nothing in the Constitution giving the Govt the right to force such a thing on private individuals. It also violates the Equal Protection Clause.

if a business is opened to accommodate the public, they have to accommodate ALL of the public.

PERIOD.

they cannot discriminate based on sexual preference, race or religion.

....

Show me where the Constitution states such a thing.

General welfare.

 

[jillian]

Against gay marriage? Not me.

Against tariffs? Yes sir.

Against forcing businesses to enter contracts with anyone who demands a contract? That is wrong on many levels.

so it's ok to put a sign on a business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

Ok is not the right word. while I may not agree with it, it should be legal as there is nothing in the Constitution giving the Govt the right to force such a thing on private individuals. It also violates the Equal Protection Clause.

if a business is opened to accommodate the public, they have to accommodate ALL of the public.

PERIOD.

they cannot discriminate based on sexual preference, race or religion.

....

Show me where the Constitution states such a thing.

General welfare.

equal protection

 

[jillian]

Well, that will teach them!

Funny as hell the people cheering on the govermethn picking and choosing winners and losers with tariffs are against this.

A person with consistent views would be opposed to both.

Against gay marriage? Not me.

Against tariffs? Yes sir.

Against forcing businesses to enter contracts with anyone who demands a contract? That is wrong on many levels.

so it's ok to put a sign on a business saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

Ok is not the right word. while I may not agree with it, it should be legal as there is nothing in the Constitution giving the Govt the right to force such a thing on private individuals. It also violates the Equal Protection Clause.

if a business is opened to accommodate the public, they have to accommodate ALL of the public.

PERIOD.

they cannot discriminate based on sexual preference, race or religion.

....

Show me where the Constitution states such a thing.

we have anti-discrimination laws in this country. we also have laws saying all people have to be treated equally under the law.

we don't codify bigotry anymore.

they keep saying they have the religious freedom to not serve certain people they don't like. that's false.

and like I said... they should go live elsewhere if they can't serve people because of their religion, color or sexual preference.