To my gay friends

Status
Not open for further replies.
You've got to be kidding me. That's pathetic. Anyone who has an IQ above freezing knows that the Westboro clan is nothing more than an inbred cult of three dozen people, and don't represent the "clergy" in any way, shape, or form.

You forget to mention that the patriarch is very likely a closeted homosexual.

It is not my view upon which I was commenting, but rather my perception of what the mob's -- in this case the gay mob -- view of it might be. Do try to read more for comprehension rather than for something to trigger your emotions.
 
You forget to mention that the patriarch is very likely a closeted homosexual.

It is not my view upon which I was commenting, but rather my perception of what the mob's -- in this case the gay mob -- view of it might be. Do try to read more for comprehension rather than for something to trigger your emotions.


Did I say it was your view? I said "anyone with an IQ over freezing." If you take that to be "you," singularly, then I think you may be the one that needs to work on their reading comprehension. You're a JD, right? I thought critical reading skills would be part of your job.
 
With a touch of capt camern...


Well, I don't think Cameron had the skills to cut and paste manifestos of someone else's words and expect us to decipher some hidden message out of all that.

Captain didn't even know how to use the Return key to start a new paragraph, if I recall correctly. Or is it little Jimmy that never used more than one paragraph to cut and paste the DNC talking points?

So many leftist trolls, it's hard to keep up.
 
You can draw whatever stupid inferences your angst can dredge out of your nether regions, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. You stated the wrong date. I corrected you. I will leave you to wallow in the rest of your mess.

I hope this makes some sense to you, because it makes little sense to those who communicate in English.

Yes, you corrected me. You were even right about the date. But the error was immaterial to my point that Brown was decided before 5 of 6 alleged commentators were born (the sixth was 3 years old at the time). So the argument based on made-up "facts" boils down to 'Your side is just racist [or, more accurately, "Pacist"] and you don't like gaymarriage because you're racist,' as if that made any sense.
 
Last edited:
I guess that the courts are being less generous to the those involved in creative endeavors than I was led to believe, though I find decorating a cake to be much more of an artistic expression than snapping photographs in a venue and of subjects chosen by the customer.

I guess you've never been married? Or you had a bad photographer? It's usually the photographer who chooses where pictures are will taken and the poses that will be used. They will take suggestions, but they're really leading it.
 
But typically you remain liable for the work done by the subcontractor (note that "delegate" and "subcontract" are two completely different things).

Yes, poor choice of words on my part, that frequently happens when you write off the cuff. I still believe there is value toward the satisfaction of both parties to be able to outsource production. Whatever the legal terms are, there is also a way to agree to move responsibility for execution to a third party.
 
I've reached the conclusion that the answer is subcontracting clauses in contracts. Some thing simple that says "If I am unable to personally do this work for any reason, including but not limited to illness, schedule or personal beliefs, then at my sole option, I may delegate execution of the work to another person inside or outside my company and direct them to coordinate with you on elements of execution."

Take as an object example the pair of females in Canada who, after contracting with a jeweler for custom wedding rings, and getting precisely what they wanted to the point that they recommended the jeweler, demanded a refund after finding out the jeweler personally opposed gay marriage so as not to have their rings tainted by his "cooties".

Of course they got their refund, because it made business sense for the jeweler to defuse the issue. Should they have been entitled to a refund? Would a straight couple have been given a refund on custom made products delivered to spec, or engendered the media firestorm on this Canadian couple's behalf that ensued?

With that background, could you imagine the knot that the gay mafia would tie themselves into if it was reported that some mean, nasty, "bigoted" business owner was "pimping out" services for gaymarriage jobs and making a nickel on the process? They don't want what they claim to want; they don't even want equality; they want everyone who disagrees with them punished and destroyed for their thought crimes.
 
Did I say it was your view? I said "anyone with an IQ over freezing." If you take that to be "you," singularly, then I think you may be the one that needs to work on their reading comprehension. You're a JD, right? I thought critical reading skills would be part of your job.

It was the only possible inference.
 
I guess you've never been married? Or you had a bad photographer? It's usually the photographer who chooses where pictures are will taken and the poses that will be used. They will take suggestions, but they're really leading it.

I guess it is a debatable point. If you zoom out, you see that the customer picked the time, the venue, and controlled the pool of possible subjects. Zoom in and the photographer does suggest how everyone is arranged to take the posed pictures.
 
There's a simple solution here. If the business owners are uncomfortable photographing themselves, they can hire a third party as an independent temp or a subcontractor to do it for them. Problem solved.
 
Last edited:
There's a simple solution here. If the business owns are uncomfortable photographing themselves, they can hire a third party as an independent temp or a subcontractor to do it for them. Problem solved.


So religious freedom needs a workaround? Got it. :rolleyes:
 
It was the only possible inference.


Not really. I was speaking to anyone with a low IQ (and there are plenty of them).

My overall point is that if the gay community actually takes the inbred Westboro clan seriously and project that onto "clergy" in general, then they have extremely low intelligence.
 
There's a simple solution here. If the business owners are uncomfortable photographing themselves, they can hire a third party as an independent temp or a subcontractor to do it for them. Problem solved.

A troll is a troll, is a troll.....
 
Not really. I was speaking to anyone with a low IQ (and there are plenty of them).

My overall point is that if the gay community actually takes the inbred Westboro clan seriously and project that onto "clergy" in general, then they have extremely low intelligence.

Maybe maybe not, but they do have an overdeveloped sense of themselves, and their right to be treated better than everybody else because of where they stick their thing.

Equality is for the little people, not dykes and their choice of wedding cakes.
 
Unfortunately both Florida Cracker and nddons are blocked.
 
They don't want what they claim to want; they don't even want equality; they want everyone who disagrees with them punished and destroyed for their thought crimes.

They certainly give that appearance. After 30 years of calling for tolerance and understanding, I'm seeing an appalling lack of it now that they have their way.
 
Still can't see it, sorry Cracker.
 
They certainly give that appearance. After 30 years of calling for tolerance and understanding, I'm seeing an appalling lack of it now that they have their way.
I don't need to tolerate bigots anymore than blacks need to tolerate the KKK. Fortunately, where I live, there are very few of you.

What I hate more than bigots are idiots, and unfortunately there seem to be quite a few avid posters in this thread who fall into both categories. Either way, not people who I'm going to waste time arguing with.
 
Last edited:
They certainly give that appearance. After 30 years of calling for tolerance and understanding, I'm seeing an appalling lack of it now that they have their way.


As Ann Coulter has said, now that they have won the war, they want to go door to door and shoot the survivors.
 
I don't need to tolerate bigots anymore than blacks need to tolerate the KKK. Fortunately, where I live, there are very few of you.

What I hate more than bigots are idiots, and unfortunately there seem to be quite a few avid posters in this thread who fall into that category. Either way, not people who I'm going to waste time arguing with.

How is all that Hating working out for you? We all knew you tolerance and anti-hate crowd, really meant that you were the only ones allowed to hate.

Bigot = Anyone that disagrees with the current (subject to change without notice) opinions of frcabot.

Idiot = Anyone who after being told what to think by a flaming fruticake, fails to think what they are told.
 
I find it hilarious that you keep quoting me as if I could read your reply. I can't. I can only imagine, with some great satisfaction, how irked you must be by that.
 
This self-centered egomaniac thinks all our posts are about him. What a twerp.

Who was the other juvenile that had several of us listed by name as blocked in his signature?

Shhhh..... We are having fun and it is KILLING him.
 
You're really not aware of the statistics regarding hate crimes against gays? I guarantee you there are far more hate crimes against gays than Christians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...e_United_States#Federal_hate_crime_statistics

According to the most recent FBI data, hate crimes targeting religion are roughly on par with those targeting sexual orientation (I've already cited this data to Kristen higher up in this thread).

But you won't learn that here, because you choose not to hear data that might upset your delicate snowflake psyche.
 
TUwDceb.gif
sums most of this thread up.
 
For one, women's access to corporate pilot jobs is limited because in small flight departments, the primary/chief pilot is not going to hire a women copilot because of the damage it may do to his marriage airplane.

Correction.
 
According to the most recent FBI data, hate crimes targeting religion are roughly on par with those targeting sexual orientation (I've already cited this data to Kristen higher up in this thread).

But you won't learn that here, because you choose not to hear data that might upset your delicate snowflake psyche.

Wow. I didn't know that.
Of the 5,922 single bias incidents reported, the top three bias categories were race (48.5 percent), sexual orientation (20.8 percent), and religion (17.4 percent).

I wonder which religion(s) were targeted.
 
That should be their right.

Could a restaurant owner refuse service, or a hotel owner accommodations, to an interracial couple?

How about an all black couple?

Could a private hospital affiliated with a church refuse treatment to people of certain sexual orientations, races or gender?

Can a homeowners' association, the majority of which belongs to the same religious denomination, refuse property transfers to people of certain sexual orientations, races or gender?

Could a municipality governed by a majority belonging to the same religious denomination legislate to refuse to offer certain services or accommodations to people of certain sexual orientations, races or gender? How about offering separate accommodations?

Of course, all of the above in the name of their religious beliefs.
 
Not really. I was speaking to anyone with a low IQ (and there are plenty of them).


And look who answered you! :rofl:


Maybe maybe not, but they do have an overdeveloped sense of themselves, and their right to be treated better than everybody else because of where they stick their thing.

Equality is for the little people, not dykes and their choice of wedding cakes.
 
Wow. I didn't know that.

I wonder which religion(s) were targeted.

That information is here. Jewish victims account for over 50% of the anti-religious hate crimes, followed by Muslims. Catholic/protestants are vastly underrepresented in the victim group...

Chances are, it's the same hate crowd going after both the religious and gay victims. :popcorn:
 
Could a restaurant owner refuse service, or a hotel owner accommodations, to an interracial couple?

How about an all black couple?

Could a private hospital affiliated with a church refuse treatment to people of certain sexual orientations, races or gender?

Can a homeowners' association, the majority of which belongs to the same religious denomination, refuse property transfers to people of certain sexual orientations, races or gender?

Could a municipality governed by a majority belonging to the same religious denomination legislate to refuse to offer certain services or accommodations to people of certain sexual orientations, races or gender? How about offering separate accommodations?

Of course, all of the above in the name of their religious beliefs.


And none of which are a part of the catechism or orthodoxy of any religion on earth, to my knowledge.
 
And none of which are a part of the catechism or orthodoxy of any religion on earth, to my knowledge.

Is that a First Amendment limitation - that in order for the free exercise clause to apply, the conduct or speech must be part of the catechism or orthodoxy of any religion on earth? Who decides if it is? What if it's up to interpretation?

The judge who ordered the Lovings out of Virginia certainly held that belief...is his view not protected? Only yours?
 
Is that a First Amendment limitation - that in order for the free exercise clause to apply, the conduct or speech must be part of the catechism or orthodoxy of any religion on earth? Who decides if it is? What if it's up to interpretation?

The judge who ordered the Lovings out of Virginia certainly held that belief...is his view not protected? Only yours?

Participating in "a sin" and discriminating based on genetic traits ain't the same thing.

If someone doesn't think that interracial marriages should happen. They shouldn't have to bake a cake celebrating it.
 
Could a restaurant owner refuse service, or a hotel owner accommodations, to an interracial couple?

How about an all black couple?

Could a private hospital affiliated with a church refuse treatment to people of certain sexual orientations, races or gender?

Can a homeowners' association, the majority of which belongs to the same religious denomination, refuse property transfers to people of certain sexual orientations, races or gender?

Could a municipality governed by a majority belonging to the same religious denomination legislate to refuse to offer certain services or accommodations to people of certain sexual orientations, races or gender? How about offering separate accommodations?

Of course, all of the above in the name of their religious beliefs.
Public facility, no. Private facility, yes. The same holds true for all white couples although you fail to mention that possibility.
 
That information is here. Jewish victims account for over 50% of the anti-religious hate crimes, followed by Muslims. Catholic/protestants are vastly underrepresented in the victim group...

Chances are, it's the same hate crowd going after both the religious and gay victims. :popcorn:

Troll... Bull****..., troll. Good work.
 
This thread has gone on longer than a gay man's orgy with a bottle of viagra and a rubber band on the bedside.

Its time to let this thread die.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top