Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Elixir]

As much as I wanted her to win, the instant I heard that basket of deplorables remark, I knew Hillary had lost—and deserved to lose, as painful as I feel i

Ditto. My first letdown was her failure to bite his head off for gooning over her, and not beating him over the head with the “puppet”.

 

[Toni]

As much as I wanted her to win, the instant I heard that basket of deplorables remark, I knew Hillary had lost—and deserved to lose, as painful as I feel i

Ditto. My first letdown was her failure to bite his head off for gooning over her, and not beating him over the head with the “puppet”.

Yeah, during that televised debate, when he kept pacing behind her, I honestly did not understand why she didn’t ask the moderators for a brief pause so that Donald could visit the bathroom.

Of course she would have been despised for that but it is impossible not to recognize that Trump would have melted down right there on stage—bigly. Hard for her not to have been seen by everyone as the winner.

 

[Jarhyn]

Hey, if you're talking about the right's coup attempt, the "Will Trump finally be indicted in Georgia?" thread is in a whole other subforum. But if you're talking about this thread's topic, you appear to have the direction of the spectrum backwards. It's the left trying to autocratically shove their will down everyone's throat and it's the right trying to democratically give the people what they want. If you seriously imagine making Christian web designers compose celebrations of gay marriages would win if the question were put to a nationwide referendum, you seriously need to get out of your bubble chamber.

Except for that whole "trying to outlaw being gay" thing.

That sentence no main verb.

Your whole post was the main verb. Learn to context.

My whole post wasn't a verb; and appending your sentence fragment to my whole post doesn't clarify what your objection to it is. Learn to express yourself comprehensibly.

No, the content of that sentence fragment clarified that: that you were ignoring in your whaddaboutism and "both-sides" that conservative are calling for fascism and a purge of sexual minorities.

Not to mention your cited case is based on a clear lie. Conservatives had to LIE about being forced to do something, no liberal actually tried to do that, anywhere, despite the fact that operating a public business means serving the whole public equally.

Granted now we can get our shitty wedding web sites made by AI

You're the only one that didn't the first part of this, and I don't think anyone else besides you seems at all ignorant of the fact that your guys gave themselves the butthurt they complained nauseatingly about.

 

[TomC]

Mmmm.... Lemme ask you a question. Do you think it would be appropriate for a school library to keep a full stock of Hustler, Playboy, and various other

If I said "Yeah, sorta" would you be surprised?

Appropriate is a complex word when it comes to schools. The whole point to schools is to educate kids about the world they live in. Any information...

Should porno be made available with no guidance? Probably not. That's the advantage to making it available in schools. There is guidance available as well.

But let's face it. Near every kid who would recognize the softcore porno you're describing has internet access to way more hardcore stuff.
Way
Way
More hardcore.

Offering access to such print material might help figure out the kids you're taking responsibility for educating.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

we don't know that the excesses of the left are correctable and we don't know efforts directed at correcting them will not be considered criminal.

Hmmm. Rhetorical slants as an art form? “We’re not banning any books, just keeping kids from reading them!”

Somehow I sense you imagine you're describing the right but not the left.

Every book you accuse the right of "keeping kids from reading" is freely available to any kid whose parent wants to buy it for her. So apparently it's the government not buying a kid a book and ordering her to read it that in your rhetoric constitutes "keeping kids from reading them!”. Well then, how the bloody hell do you figure the progressive-dominated school boards that updated the school curricula and replaced the old insufficiently "woke" books were not "keeping kids from reading them!”? Those traditional books the right liked better used to be bought for students, and the students were ordered to read them, and now they aren't.

We do know that in a democracy, changes in the makeup of the government are designed in. Dems try to preserve that feature while Republicans try to make their power permanent by illegal and violent means.

Some Republicans do; some don't. Some Democrats do; some don't. For instance, a lot of Democrats try to make their power permanent by illegally censoring opposition speech, or by incentivizing illegal immigration of people in Democrat-leaning demographics, or by violently Occupying cities.

 

[Toni]

we don't know that the excesses of the left are correctable and we don't know efforts directed at correcting them will not be considered criminal.

Hmmm. Rhetorical slants as an art form? “We’re not banning any books, just keeping kids from reading them!”

Somehow I sense you imagine you're describing the right but not the left.

Every book you accuse the right of "keeping kids from reading" is freely available to any kid whose parent wants to buy it for her. So apparently it's the government not buying a kid a book and ordering her to read it that in your rhetoric constitutes "keeping kids from reading them!”. Well then, how the bloody hell do you figure the progressive-dominated school boards that updated the school curricula and replaced the old books with the new so-called "woke" ones were not "keeping kids from reading them!”? Those traditional books the right liked better used to be bought for students, and the students were ordered to read them, and now they aren't.

We do know that in a democracy, changes in the makeup of the government are designed in. Dems try to preserve that feature while Republicans try to make their power permanent by illegal and violent means.

Some Republicans do; some don't. Some Democrats do; some don't. For instance, a lot of Democrats try to make their power permanent by illegally censoring opposition speech, or by incentivizing illegal immigration of people in Democrat-leaning demographics, or by violently Occupying cities.

Really? I’ve always found it ti be very much a paradox: Many immigrant populations are socially conservative, not being as supportive of LGBTQ rights, or abortion rights, for instance. It always seemed perplexing to me that Republicans oppose the immigration of peoples from heavily Catholic countries south of the Rio Grande, while Democrats have more actively supported immigration from these same countries.

 

[Bomb#20]

Hey, if you're talking about the right's coup attempt, the "Will Trump finally be indicted in Georgia?" thread is in a whole other subforum. But if you're talking about this thread's topic, you appear to have the direction of the spectrum backwards. It's the left trying to autocratically shove their will down everyone's throat and it's the right trying to democratically give the people what they want. If you seriously imagine making Christian web designers compose celebrations of gay marriages would win if the question were put to a nationwide referendum, you seriously need to get out of your bubble chamber.

Except for that whole "trying to outlaw being gay" thing.

That sentence no main verb.

Your whole post was the main verb. Learn to context.

My whole post wasn't a verb; and appending your sentence fragment to my whole post doesn't clarify what your objection to it is. Learn to express yourself comprehensibly.

No, the content of that sentence fragment clarified that: that you were ignoring in your whaddaboutism and "both-sides" that conservative are calling for fascism and a purge of sexual minorities.

Dude, you quoted me not ignoring it. I pointed out that it's off-topic in this thread -- that's not ignoring. Progressives are calling for theocracy and a purge of heretical minorities, but that's off-topic too; should I be railing at you for ignoring that? This is a thread about Smith against a Colorado regulatory agency.

Not to mention your cited case is based on a clear lie. Conservatives had to LIE about being forced to do something,]/quote]
Whoop-de-do. The Colorado government converted the fake case into a real one when they chose to defend their regulation from an injunction. They could have said "Never mind, we didn't mean you have to do that" and walked away. Instead they tried to get the federal courts to give them permission to force conservatives to do something.

Moreover, the Smith case is just a continuation of the Phillips cases, in which a conservative really was being forced to do something by a the same left-wing government agency.

no liberal actually tried to do that, anywhere,

Well, DUH! None of the progressives who actually tried to get authority to force conservatives to use their creativity on behalf of progressive causes are liberals, regardless of what language abuse they commit when they label themselves.

despite the fact that operating a public business means serving the whole public equally.

Oh, come off it! You already said it was okay for a public business to refuse to serve Zionists, so you might as well give a rest to the whole "serving the whole public equally" rhetorical window dressing. This is about you wanting the government to favor your ingroup and disfavor your outgroup.