Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Emily Lake]

What's your point? Are you trying to say I need to shut my uppity negro mouth and not question the authoritah of the SCOTUS? Why state the obvious?

Dude, talk about trying to discern other people's hidden motives. Jesus fucking christ on a cracker - where the fuck do you get off insinuating that Toni is racist? GTFOH with that bullshit.

 

[Emily Lake]

This was never about religious convictions or compelled speech. It was about allowing certain whites to be supreme again and asserting their conservative moral authority on others.

The fake nature of this case makes the above almost certain to be true. I guess they forgot that lying is a sin part.

As well as a crime when it occurs in legal filings. I'm am still waiting for news of the fair and just Amurica of Tom and Bomb and Emily and L. P. charging the perjurous litigant and her lawyers.

If it were in my reasonable domain to file that suit, I would.

Why do you feel a need to take such petty jabs at people? Are you incapable of actually discussing the topic like an adult?

 

[TomC]

What's your point? Are you trying to say I need to shut my uppity negro mouth and not question the authoritah of the SCOTUS? Why state the obvious?

Dude, talk about trying to discern other people's hidden motives. Jesus fucking christ on a cracker - where the fuck do you get off insinuating that Toni is racist? GTFOH with that bullshit.

You can't really say that.
Gospel is staff
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Michelangelo was forced to paint the Sistine Chapel by his patron

Yes, clearly Renaissance artists are totally relevant to this discussion, makes perfect sense.

 

[Toni]

I have enormous quarrels with anyone being forced to create something specific for someone else, full stop.

Nobody is being compelled to provide custom services. Yet, if one chooses to offer such services, they shouldn't discriminate based on a protected class. That's how I see it & that's where we differ.

Yeah, to me, it’s a bright line. I believe that one should be able to decline fir whatever reason, even if that reason means you are a horrible human being. I will note that you’re either stupid or looking for a fight ( or both) if you cite the reason as anything other than you have a big conflict that you just cannot work around when you decline a commission.

 

[Emily Lake]

dear me, can't ya take a campy joke. Pearl-clutching prissiness, such as you exhibit here, is often a response to camp. I know, I done it myself.
I gather you don't, on principle, approve of the Beatles British perspective in "Happiness is a Warm Gun".
Your country's gun policy, leaning on the second amendment, is crazed, racist in application, and appalling. It facilitates depriving large numbers of Americans of their right to life, so other citizens of democracies can look at the likes of Toni gloating over having a constitution and not having a monarch and think, yeah, but you got guns, guns, guns embedded in your very constitution. Or, have i misunderstood the right to life in America? As another poster reminded me about the right to the pursuit of happiness, it the right to life merely in the your apparently insignificant Declaration of Independence, and therefore not constitutionally guaranteed?

Is it too much to ask that you keep a lid on your nation-based hatred and bigotry?

 

[Emily Lake]

What's your point? Are you trying to say I need to shut my uppity negro mouth and not question the authoritah of the SCOTUS? Why state the obvious?

Dude, talk about trying to discern other people's hidden motives. Jesus fucking christ on a cracker - where the fuck do you get off insinuating that Toni is racist? GTFOH with that bullshit.

You can't really say that.
Gospel is staff
Tom

Then Gospel needs to act like staff, and not low-key accuse other posters of being racists when he's having a bit of a tantrum.

 

[TomC]

What's your point? Are you trying to say I need to shut my uppity negro mouth and not question the authoritah of the SCOTUS? Why state the obvious?

Dude, talk about trying to discern other people's hidden motives. Jesus fucking christ on a cracker - where the fuck do you get off insinuating that Toni is racist? GTFOH with that bullshit.

You can't really say that.
Gospel is staff
Tom

Then Gospel needs to act like staff, and not low-key accuse other posters of being racists when he's having a bit of a tantrum.

No he doesn't.
I'm not expecting that anyway.

 

[Toni]

And then there's the fabulously salty second amendment--why I remember when the right-wing racists right south of the border were questioning Michelle Obama's right to bare arms; but then were if anything, laudatory, about Melania's bare arms. But when it comes to the second amendment's application, the right south of the border seems to think the right is white, but blacks even possibly bearing arms is an abomination, and if the opportunity arises, should

I avoid making similarly crusty criticism of countries I don't live in because I don't think I'm sufficiently familiar with their history or culture.

I don't have a sufficiently informed opinion. I try to avoid displaying my ignorance.
Tom

dear me, can't ya take a campy joke. Pearl-clutching prissiness, such as you exhibit here, is often a response to camp. I know, I done it myself.
I gather you don't, on principle, approve of the Beatles British perspective in "Happiness is a Warm Gun".
Your country's gun policy, leaning on the second amendment, is crazed, racist in application, and appalling. It facilitates depriving large numbers of Americans of their right to life, so other citizens of democracies can look at the likes of Toni gloating over having a constitution and not having a monarch and think, yeah, but you got guns, guns, guns embedded in your very constitution. Or, have i misunderstood the right to life in America? As another poster reminded me about the right to the pursuit of happiness, it the right to life merely in the your apparently insignificant Declaration of Independence, and therefore not constitutionally guaranteed?

Yeah, I was just joking about the monarchy. I’m not much of an historian but I’m up to date enough on current affairs to realize the US has a loooooooong way to go with regards to guns, violence, racism, bigotry, classism!, sexism, inequities in our educational and legal systems and a truly bizarre way of paying for medical care plus probably a dozen other things or more I am not remembering to include to genuinely cast aspersions. Hell, we elected fucking Donald Trump and may do it again.

 

[Gospel]

What's your point? Are you trying to say I need to shut my uppity negro mouth and not question the authoritah of the SCOTUS? Why state the obvious?

Dude, talk about trying to discern other people's hidden motives. Jesus fucking christ on a cracker - where the fuck do you get off insinuating that Toni is racist? GTFOH with that bullshit.

You've arrived late once more. I'd suggest reviewing the context of the previous comments. Either you'll grasp my point or you won't. I'm not concerned with any misinterpretation on your end, no matter how often it's repeated. When I call someone racist, it will be obvious not some innuendo.

 

[Gospel]

dear me, can't ya take a campy joke. Pearl-clutching prissiness, such as you exhibit here, is often a response to camp. I know, I done it myself.
I gather you don't, on principle, approve of the Beatles British perspective in "Happiness is a Warm Gun".
Your country's gun policy, leaning on the second amendment, is crazed, racist in application, and appalling. It facilitates depriving large numbers of Americans of their right to life, so other citizens of democracies can look at the likes of Toni gloating over having a constitution and not having a monarch and think, yeah, but you got guns, guns, guns embedded in your very constitution. Or, have i misunderstood the right to life in America? As another poster reminded me about the right to the pursuit of happiness, it the right to life merely in the your apparently insignificant Declaration of Independence, and therefore not constitutionally guaranteed?

Is it too much to ask that you keep a lid on your nation-based hatred and bigotry?

It would be more constructive to provide a counter-argument at this point.

 

[Gospel]

And then there's the fabulously salty second amendment--why I remember when the right-wing racists right south of the border were questioning Michelle Obama's right to bare arms; but then were if anything, laudatory, about Melania's bare arms. But when it comes to the second amendment's application, the right south of the border seems to think the right is white, but blacks even possibly bearing arms is an abomination, and if the opportunity arises, should

I avoid making similarly crusty criticism of countries I don't live in because I don't think I'm sufficiently familiar with their history or culture.

I don't have a sufficiently informed opinion. I try to avoid displaying my ignorance.
Tom

dear me, can't ya take a campy joke. Pearl-clutching prissiness, such as you exhibit here, is often a response to camp. I know, I done it myself.
I gather you don't, on principle, approve of the Beatles British perspective in "Happiness is a Warm Gun".
Your country's gun policy, leaning on the second amendment, is crazed, racist in application, and appalling. It facilitates depriving large numbers of Americans of their right to life, so other citizens of democracies can look at the likes of Toni gloating over having a constitution and not having a monarch and think, yeah, but you got guns, guns, guns embedded in your very constitution. Or, have i misunderstood the right to life in America? As another poster reminded me about the right to the pursuit of happiness, it the right to life merely in the your apparently insignificant Declaration of Independence, and therefore not constitutionally guaranteed?

I value your viewpoint and recognize your humor. Nonetheless, we must consider the potential implications of jokes, particularly on delicate subjects. What might be light-hearted for one can be deeply significant to another. Regarding "Happiness is a Warm Gun" by The Beatles, art often provides commentary, satire, or prompts introspection. Linking musical preferences to socio-political stances might oversimplify things. The U.S. Constitution, including its amendments, lays the foundation for the nation's values and governance. While the Second Amendment elicits diverse opinions, it is rooted in a broader historical and cultural backdrop. Generalizing it or branding its implementation as "racist" demands careful, nuanced discourse, taking into account historical events and various laws.

The universally recognized right to life is indeed mentioned in the Declaration of Independence alongside other unalienable rights. Discussing this right in the lens of gun policies requires an intricate examination of history, societal values, and more. Lastly, every nation has its virtues and challenges. Through understanding and constructive discussion, we can bridge differing perspectives and cultivate respect.

 

[TomC]

Regarding "Happiness is a Warm Gun" by The Beatles, art often provides commentary, satire, or prompts introspection.

To clarify for the youngsters,
Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings. It was famous in the day.
Tom

 

[Toni]

What's your point? Are you trying to say I need to shut my uppity negro mouth and not question the authoritah of the SCOTUS? Why state the obvious?

Dude, talk about trying to discern other people's hidden motives. Jesus fucking christ on a cracker - where the fuck do you get off insinuating that Toni is racist? GTFOH with that bullshit.

Emily, thanks for the back up but I’m fine. I didn’t take offense with Gospel. I understand where he is coming from.

 

[Bomb#20]

... Well, unless you count "white men who own land", I guess.

... Regarding your second comment, I must ask: why can't we engage in an open discussion without attempting to deduce someone's underlying intentions behind their arguments? ...

I deduce that your underlying intention was to use "we" to mean "Emily"...

... Could you clarify how this question ties into our main topic before I delve into any tangential discussions?

Sure thing. Toni wrote:

"That said, I do not believe that it furthers justice to compel speech, religion, creativity."​

You replied:

"If that's your stance, then you're essentially opposing the entire US Constitution. Its primary purpose is to ensure that US citizens adhere to its provisions."​

You're wrong. She's upholding the entire US Constitution; you're the one opposing it. ...

That quote was intentionally taken out of its original context. To grasp the reason behind my initial statement, one needs to consider the entire comment. It's evident that you're more focused on scoring points than engaging in a genuine discussion."

... because it is evidently perfectly okay with you for you to deduce other posters' intentions; you object to it only when you think other posters are doing it to you.

What I was focused on was engaging in genuine discussion in an attempt to convince you to stop undervaluing freedom of speech and rule of law, and to stop overvaluing your fantasy utopia of "non-discrimination" (a utopia which would in fact be highly discriminatory). But apparently discussion is futile and you retreat to baseless trumped-up ad hominems when others don't see things your way. So we're done. Sayonara.

 

[Bomb#20]

So what makes you think it's constitutional for those labeled "business owners" to be singled out for different treatment?

Hmmm. Is it the individual being compelled or the Company entity? This sounds like it trends toward validating the (proven disastrous) finding that Companies are people.

The police will be coming over* to destroy your computer for saying that, since it has no 1st Amendment right to free speech. If anyone posts anything the government disapproves of, they can compel that it be silenced. Is that individuals being compelled, or the computer entities? Clearly it's the latter -- god forbid that we validate the proven disastrous finding that computers are people.

(* Let the police in. If you don't you'll be arrested for harboring a fugitive computer. No, they don't need a search warrant -- your computer has no 4th Amendment rights.)

 

[Elixir]

The police will be coming over* to destroy your computer for saying that, since it has no 1st Amendment right to free speech.

Bullshit. It hasn’t spoken a word.

If anyone posts anything the government disapproves of on a government website they can compel that it be silenced.

FIFY

 

[southernhybrid]

Now, speaking of art, let me do my Dionne Warwick impersonation.....

What this thread needs now is love, sweet love
It's the only thing that there's just too little of
What this thread needs now is love, sweet love
No, not just for some but for everyone.

*sigh*

How long has this been going on?

What do you all expect to accomplish by repeating the same things over and over again and do attacks and criticisms of others help change the viewpoint's of others? That's news to me.

And btw, Black people do own guns, even here in the South. Lots of them do and it's just as easy for a Black person to buy a gun as it is for anyone who is of a different race or ethnicity. I hate guns, but I'm married to a gun owner and the last time I went to a shooting range with him and his brother, we were the only three white people in the place. Actually, I was the only white one. My husband and his brother are of Arabic descent, which is now considered brown. I just call them "Whitish". And Michelle Obama can "bare" her arms anytime she wants.

This thread certainly needs some humor along with some love.

 

[Toni]

What's your point? Are you trying to say I need to shut my uppity negro mouth and not question the authoritah of the SCOTUS? Why state the obvious?

Dude, talk about trying to discern other people's hidden motives. Jesus fucking christ on a cracker - where the fuck do you get off insinuating that Toni is racist? GTFOH with that bullshit.

You can't really say that.
Gospel is staff
Tom

Then Gospel needs to act like staff, and not low-key accuse other posters of being racists when he's having a bit of a tantrum.

Again, I’m fine with Gospel. I think in my next post I accused him of being a sexist pig ( different words and obviously not meant literally). I think he’s a great mod! In this thread, which I have abandoned multiple times, thereby missing lots of posts, I think that Gospel and I ( and me and other posters) have talked past/over/around each other.

I also understand that this issue hits differently for other people.

 

[Bomb#20]

Hmmm. Is it the individual being compelled or the Company entity? This sounds like it trends toward validating the (proven disastrous) finding that Companies are people.

The police will be coming over* to destroy your computer for saying that, since it has no 1st Amendment right to free speech.

Bull... It hasn’t spoken a word.

Neither has any "Company entity". Companies, like computers, are tools.

If anyone posts anything the government disapproves of on a government website they can compel that it be silenced.

FIFY

Yes, that's what the law is now -- I was pointing out what the law will become if the government were to accept the reasoning in post #1297 and apply it consistently.