Discussion:
Rainbow Flag
Add Reply
Rudy Canoza
2021-06-11 17:11:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag to be flown over
government installations. This is the government openly endorsing a specific
political agenda.
No need to read past that lie.

Meanwhile, here's a good story about an enlightened Republican mayor:

"A conservative mayor heard tearful stories. They changed his mind about flying
the rainbow flag"

When the Fresno City Council voted recently to observe LGBTQ Pride Month by
flying the rainbow flag at City Hall, Mayor Jerry Dyer’s objection was not
surprising.

A Republican who loudly and proudly advertises his faith as a born-again
Christian, the mayor expressed concern about the precedent the left-leaning
council would set and the divisions it would cause. Which other flags should be
honored by the city? What about hoisting religious flags at the futuristic civic
hub?

Throughout the country, fights over flying the pride flag have become a spring
perennial, like crocuses, though far less lovely. And sure enough the 5-2 vote
led to the very division the mayor had hoped to avoid.

Naturally, it turned into a partisan fight as well.

Local Democrats weighed in with a statement extolling the flag raising as a way
“to inspire hope and create a feeling of inclusion.” Local Republicans called
the move “short-sighted and extreme.”

Then Dyer did something unusual. Rather than dig in to his position and swat
away critics, he listened.

He read the emails that flooded his office. He reviewed the hundreds of
voicemails people left. He talked to constituents, at Starbucks and at church.
He heard tearful stories about gay, lesbian and transgender people being
ostracized, or cast aside by family and friends.

He changed his mind.
[...]
A gay friend suggested the mayor attend the pride ceremony at Fresno City
College and, after talking to its president, Dyer showed up among the crowd of
50 or so. He hung back and tried not to draw too much attention.

He listened some more. He was particularly moved, Dyer said later, when the
college president, Carole Goldsmith, “talked about how when she told her parents
for the first time that she was gay ... how she had been asked to leave the
home. How that broke her heart.

“And then the countless stories of other people who had felt excluded,” Dyer
went on, “been excluded from friends that walked away from them, family that
walked away from them, churches that, in their eyes, had excluded them.”

Hours later, just over a week after the council vote, Goldsmith joined Dyer at
an emotional news conference where he announced his change of heart and said he
supported flying the pride flag at City Hall. A formal ceremony is set for Friday.

In an interview, Dyer acknowledged his changed position might cost him support
among fellow Republicans and conservative Christians, but he said the matter
transcended politics. “I have my foundational faith in Christ, I don’t hide
that,” Dyer said. “But I don’t want that to stand in the way of me causing
people to feel loved and supported in our community.”

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-06-10/gay-pride-flag-fresno-mayor-jerry-dyer

Dyer changed his mind because, unlike you, he understands what the *important*
part of Christ's teachings are, and he takes them seriously. You're just a
fucking hypocrite.
Lamey
2021-06-11 17:42:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag to be flown over
government installations. This is the government openly endorsing a specific
political agenda.
No need to read past that lie.
Translation: I hate the truth.
Post by Rudy Canoza
"A conservative mayor heard tearful stories. They changed his mind about flying
the rainbow flag"
When the Fresno City Council voted recently to observe LGBTQ Pride Month by
flying the rainbow flag at City Hall, Mayor Jerry Dyer’s objection was not
surprising.
A Republican who loudly and proudly advertises his faith as a born-again
Christian, the mayor expressed concern about the precedent the left-leaning
council would set and the divisions it would cause. Which other flags should be
honored by the city? What about hoisting religious flags at the futuristic civic
hub?
Throughout the country, fights over flying the pride flag have become a spring
perennial, like crocuses, though far less lovely. And sure enough the 5-2 vote
led to the very division the mayor had hoped to avoid.
Naturally, it turned into a partisan fight as well.
Local Democrats weighed in with a statement extolling the flag raising as a way
“to inspire hope and create a feeling of inclusion.” Local Republicans called
the move “short-sighted and extreme.”
Then Dyer did something unusual. Rather than dig in to his position and swat
away critics, he listened.
He read the emails that flooded his office. He reviewed the hundreds of
voicemails people left. He talked to constituents, at Starbucks and at church.
He heard tearful stories about gay, lesbian and transgender people being
ostracized, or cast aside by family and friends.
He changed his mind.
[...]
A gay friend suggested the mayor attend the pride ceremony at Fresno City
College and, after talking to its president, Dyer showed up among the crowd of
50 or so. He hung back and tried not to draw too much attention.
He listened some more. He was particularly moved, Dyer said later, when the
college president, Carole Goldsmith, “talked about how when she told her parents
for the first time that she was gay ... how she had been asked to leave the
home. How that broke her heart.
“And then the countless stories of other people who had felt excluded,” Dyer
went on, “been excluded from friends that walked away from them, family that
walked away from them, churches that, in their eyes, had excluded them.”
Hours later, just over a week after the council vote, Goldsmith joined Dyer at
an emotional news conference where he announced his change of heart and said he
supported flying the pride flag at City Hall. A formal ceremony is set for Friday.
In an interview, Dyer acknowledged his changed position might cost him support
among fellow Republicans and conservative Christians, but he said the matter
transcended politics. “I have my foundational faith in Christ, I don’t hide
that,” Dyer said. “But I don’t want that to stand in the way of me causing
people to feel loved and supported in our community.”
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-06-10/gay-pride-flag-fresno-mayor-jerry-dyer
Dyer changed his mind because, unlike you, he understands what the *important*
part of Christ's teachings are, and he takes them seriously. You're just a
fucking hypocrite.
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-11 19:59:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag to be
flown over government installations. This is the government openly
endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable, while a
privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial plots paid for
with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-06-11 22:46:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag to be
flown over government installations. This is the government openly
endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable, while a
privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial plots paid for
with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-12 03:21:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag to be
flown over government installations. This is the government openly
endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable, while a
privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial plots paid for
with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-06-12 04:00:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag to be
flown over government installations. This is the government openly
endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable, while a
privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial plots paid for
with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
Perhaps. But, there is also the Hatch Act which prohibits on-the-job
partisan political activity for many government agencies.
Siri Cruise
2021-06-12 09:40:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Perhaps. But, there is also the Hatch Act which prohibits on-the-job
partisan political activity for many government agencies.
Sadly republicans regard treating gays like equal humans is a
partisan political activity.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed
super70s
2021-06-12 04:58:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable,
while a privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial
plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was an
authoritarian nightmare.

Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
Blue Lives Matter
2021-06-12 09:42:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 23:58:53 -0500, super70s
Post by super70s
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was an
authoritarian nightmare.
Authoritarian? What did Trump force you to do Dummy.?
David Hartung
2021-06-12 11:12:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable,
while a privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial
plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was an
authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
Blue Lives Matter
2021-06-12 11:16:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 06:12:00 -0500, David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable,
while a privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial
plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was an
authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
TRump made him wet the bed...
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-12 11:22:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 07:16:58 -0400, Blue Lives Matter
Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 06:12:00 -0500, David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable,
while a privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial
plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was an
authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
TRump made him wet the bed...
As it did for so many leftists, hating Trump gave him a reason to
live.
Jonathan
2021-06-12 14:50:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable,
while a privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial
plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was an
authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
I keep forgetting, FOX News doesn't report
anything negative about Trump so I doubt
you've heard.

We're finding out Trump had an enemies list
that would make Nixon blush, and he had
the Justice Dept secretly snoop on any
reporter, democratic Congressmen and
their staff and even...family members Trump
wanted to silence.

And Trump had the Justice Dept do that
WITHOUT EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, just
that they were on his enemies list
of people that opposed him.

THAT'S what is meant by authoritarian
nightmare. And we've only scratched
the surface.
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Blue Lives Matter
2021-06-12 14:58:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Hartung
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable,
while a privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial
plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was an
authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
I keep forgetting, FOX News doesn't report
anything negative about Trump so I doubt
you've heard.
We're finding out Trump had an enemies list
that would make Nixon blush, and he had
the Justice Dept secretly snoop on any
reporter, democratic Congressmen and
their staff and even...family members Trump
wanted to silence.
And Trump had the Justice Dept do that
WITHOUT EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, just
that they were on his enemies list
of people that opposed him.
THAT'S what is meant by authoritarian
nightmare. And we've only scratched
the surface.
Do you mean the "authoritarian nightmare" when the Democrats lied to
thr FISA court in order to spy on the TRump campaig?
David Hartung
2021-06-12 15:51:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Blue Lives Matter
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Hartung
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable,
while a privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial
plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was an
authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
I keep forgetting, FOX News doesn't report
anything negative about Trump so I doubt
you've heard.
We're finding out Trump had an enemies list
that would make Nixon blush, and he had
the Justice Dept secretly snoop on any
reporter, democratic Congressmen and
their staff and even...family members Trump
wanted to silence.
And Trump had the Justice Dept do that
WITHOUT EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, just
that they were on his enemies list
of people that opposed him.
THAT'S what is meant by authoritarian
nightmare. And we've only scratched
the surface.
Do you mean the "authoritarian nightmare" when the Democrats lied to
thr FISA court in order to spy on the TRump campaig?
Apparently the left doesn't see that as a problem.
Bill Flett
2021-06-12 15:58:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Blue Lives Matter
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Hartung
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable,
while a privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial
plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was an
authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
I keep forgetting, FOX News doesn't report
anything negative about Trump so I doubt
you've heard.
We're finding out Trump had an enemies list
that would make Nixon blush, and he had
the Justice Dept secretly snoop on any
reporter, democratic Congressmen and
their staff and even...family members Trump
wanted to silence.
And Trump had the Justice Dept do that
WITHOUT EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, just
that they were on his enemies list
of people that opposed him.
THAT'S what is meant by authoritarian
nightmare. And we've only scratched
the surface.
Do you mean the "authoritarian nightmare" when the Democrats lied to
thr FISA court in order to spy on the TRump campaig?
Apparently the left doesn't see that as a problem.
Not a problem because it didn't happen. There was no "lying" to the FISA court.
Bill Flett
2021-06-12 16:42:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 6/12/2021 6:58 PM, KlausSchadenfreude
Post by David Hartung
Post by Blue Lives Matter
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Hartung
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable,
while a privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial
plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was an
authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
I keep forgetting, FOX News doesn't report
anything negative about Trump so I doubt
you've heard.
We're finding out Trump had an enemies list
that would make Nixon blush, and he had
the Justice Dept secretly snoop on any
reporter, democratic Congressmen and
their staff and even...family members Trump
wanted to silence.
And Trump had the Justice Dept do that
WITHOUT EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, just
that they were on his enemies list
of people that opposed him.
THAT'S what is meant by authoritarian
nightmare. And we've only scratched
the surface.
Do you mean the "authoritarian nightmare" when the Democrats lied to
thr FISA court in order to spy on the TRump campaig?
Apparently the left doesn't see that as a problem.
Bill Flett didn't write that. Some smarmy squat-to-piss no-fight cocksucker
named kleine klauschen wrote it. The little fuck is afraid to fight me.
David Hartung
2021-06-12 17:26:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 6/12/2021 6:58 PM,  KlausSchadenfreude
Post by David Hartung
Post by Blue Lives Matter
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Hartung
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable,
while a privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial
plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's
what
it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was an
authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
I keep forgetting, FOX News doesn't report
anything negative about Trump so I doubt
you've heard.
We're finding out Trump had an enemies list
that would make Nixon blush, and he had
the Justice Dept secretly snoop on any
reporter, democratic Congressmen and
their staff and even...family members Trump
wanted to silence.
And Trump had the Justice Dept do that
WITHOUT EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, just
that they were on his enemies list
of people that opposed him.
THAT'S what is meant by authoritarian
nightmare. And we've only scratched
the surface.
Do you mean the "authoritarian nightmare" when the Democrats lied to
thr FISA court in order to spy on the TRump campaig?
Apparently the left doesn't see that as a problem.
Bill Flett didn't write that.  Some smarmy squat-to-piss no-fight
cocksucker
named kleine klauschen wrote it.  The little fuck is afraid to fight me.
Rudy, with your long history of forging posts, you are in no position to
complain when somebody does it to you.
super70s
2021-06-12 17:15:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by David Hartung
Post by Blue Lives Matter
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Hartung
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this
acceptable, while a privately funded monument in a public
cemetery, on burial plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what
it is supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than
others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was
an authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
I keep forgetting, FOX News doesn't report
anything negative about Trump so I doubt
you've heard.
We're finding out Trump had an enemies list
that would make Nixon blush, and he had
the Justice Dept secretly snoop on any
reporter, democratic Congressmen and
their staff and even...family members Trump
wanted to silence.
And Trump had the Justice Dept do that
WITHOUT EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, just
that they were on his enemies list
of people that opposed him.
THAT'S what is meant by authoritarian
nightmare. And we've only scratched
the surface.
Do you mean the "authoritarian nightmare" when the Democrats lied to
thr FISA court in order to spy on the TRump campaig?
Apparently the left doesn't see that as a problem.
Not a problem because it didn't happen. There was no "lying" to the FISA court.
It's simple, don't hobnob with shady foreign characters like Trump and
his henchmen were doing during his campaign (and continued to do
throughout his 4 years in office) and no red flags will be raised to
warrant an investigation.
Blue Lives Matter
2021-06-12 18:31:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 12:15:32 -0500, super70s
Post by super70s
Post by Bill Flett
Post by David Hartung
Post by Blue Lives Matter
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Hartung
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this
acceptable, while a privately funded monument in a public
cemetery, on burial plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what
it is supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than
others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was
an authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
I keep forgetting, FOX News doesn't report
anything negative about Trump so I doubt
you've heard.
We're finding out Trump had an enemies list
that would make Nixon blush, and he had
the Justice Dept secretly snoop on any
reporter, democratic Congressmen and
their staff and even...family members Trump
wanted to silence.
And Trump had the Justice Dept do that
WITHOUT EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, just
that they were on his enemies list
of people that opposed him.
THAT'S what is meant by authoritarian
nightmare. And we've only scratched
the surface.
Do you mean the "authoritarian nightmare" when the Democrats lied to
thr FISA court in order to spy on the TRump campaig?
Apparently the left doesn't see that as a problem.
Not a problem because it didn't happen. There was no "lying" to the FISA court.
It's simple, don't hobnob with shady foreign characters like Trump and
his henchmen were doing during his campaign (and continued to do
throughout his 4 years in office) and no red flags will be raised to
warrant an investigation.
See what happens, folks, when you listen to CNN, NPR, and MSNBC? You
become dumber than a box of rocks like these two fools.
Dutch
2021-06-13 21:34:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by super70s
Post by Bill Flett
Post by David Hartung
Post by Blue Lives Matter
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Hartung
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this
acceptable, while a privately funded monument in a public
cemetery, on burial plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what
it is supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than
others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was
an authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
I keep forgetting, FOX News doesn't report
anything negative about Trump so I doubt
you've heard.
We're finding out Trump had an enemies list
that would make Nixon blush, and he had
the Justice Dept secretly snoop on any
reporter, democratic Congressmen and
their staff and even...family members Trump
wanted to silence.
And Trump had the Justice Dept do that
WITHOUT EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, just
that they were on his enemies list
of people that opposed him.
THAT'S what is meant by authoritarian
nightmare. And we've only scratched
the surface.
Do you mean the "authoritarian nightmare" when the Democrats lied to
thr FISA court in order to spy on the TRump campaig?
Apparently the left doesn't see that as a problem.
Not a problem because it didn't happen. There was no "lying" to the FISA court.
It's simple, don't hobnob with shady foreign characters like Trump and
his henchmen were doing during his campaign (and continued to do
throughout his 4 years in office) and no red flags will be raised to
warrant an investigation.
Birds of a feather..
Jonathan
2021-06-13 00:45:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Blue Lives Matter
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Hartung
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable,
while a privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial
plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was an
authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
I keep forgetting, FOX News doesn't report
anything negative about Trump so I doubt
you've heard.
We're finding out Trump had an enemies list
that would make Nixon blush, and he had
the Justice Dept secretly snoop on any
reporter, democratic Congressmen and
their staff and even...family members Trump
wanted to silence.
And Trump had the Justice Dept do that
WITHOUT EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, just
that they were on his enemies list
of people that opposed him.
THAT'S what is meant by authoritarian
nightmare. And we've only scratched
the surface.
Do you mean the "authoritarian nightmare" when the Democrats lied to
thr FISA court in order to spy on the TRump campaig?
Apparently the left doesn't see that as a problem.
On December 9, 2019, Horowitz released his report stating
that the FBI found 17 “basic and fundamental” errors and
omissions in its applications to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISA Court), but did not find political
bias during the investigation of Trump and Russia, nor did
he find evidence that the FBI attempted to place people
inside the Trump campaign or report on the Trump campaign.

The report found that the FBI had a legal "authorized
investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication"
to ask for court approval to begin surveillance of Carter Page,
a former Trump campaign adviser.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Horowitz
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Dutch
2021-06-13 21:32:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Blue Lives Matter
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Hartung
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable,
while a privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial
plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was an
authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
I keep forgetting, FOX News doesn't report
anything negative about Trump so I doubt
you've heard.
We're finding out Trump had an enemies list
that would make Nixon blush, and he had
the Justice Dept secretly snoop on any
reporter, democratic Congressmen and
their staff and even...family members Trump
wanted to silence.
And Trump had the Justice Dept do that
WITHOUT EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, just
that they were on his enemies list
of people that opposed him.
THAT'S what is meant by authoritarian
nightmare. And we've only scratched
the surface.
Do you mean the "authoritarian nightmare" when the Democrats lied to
thr FISA court in order to spy on the TRump campaig?
"The Democrats" did no such thing. An FBI agent broke protocol in one
application and the resulting investigation uncovered widespread
collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence. THAT is
the takeaway that should alarm Americans.

What kind of a country would it be if Trump had been successful in his
efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election? I'll tell
you in case you can't piece it together, "an authoritarian nightmare".
DoD
2021-06-13 23:45:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Blue Lives Matter
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Hartung
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable,
while a privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial
plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was an
authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
I keep forgetting, FOX News doesn't report
anything negative about Trump so I doubt
you've heard.
We're finding out Trump had an enemies list
that would make Nixon blush, and he had
the Justice Dept secretly snoop on any
reporter, democratic Congressmen and
their staff and even...family members Trump
wanted to silence.
And Trump had the Justice Dept do that
WITHOUT EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, just
that they were on his enemies list
of people that opposed him.
THAT'S what is meant by authoritarian
nightmare. And we've only scratched
the surface.
Do you mean the "authoritarian nightmare" when the Democrats lied to
thr FISA court in order to spy on the TRump campaig?
"The Democrats" did no such thing. An FBI agent broke protocol in one
application and the resulting investigation uncovered widespread collusion
between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence. THAT is the takeaway that
should alarm Americans.
What kind of a country would it be if Trump had been successful in his efforts
to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election? I'll tell you in case you
can't piece it together, "an authoritarian nightmare".
Trump's Jan 06 insurrection was his last-gasp effort to keep the authoritarian
nightmare running for at least another four years.
DoD
2021-06-12 15:30:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable,
while a privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial
plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was an
authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
The one inflicted on us from Jan 20 2017 to Jan 20 2021. That one.
David Hartung
2021-06-12 15:52:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable,
while a privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial
plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was an
authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
The one inflicted on us from Jan 20 2017 to Jan 20 2021.  That one.
That time period was not authoritarian.
DoD
2021-06-12 15:58:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by super70s
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:46:46 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:35:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the government
openly endorsing a specific political agenda. Why is this acceptable,
while a privately funded monument in a public cemetery, on burial
plots paid for with private funds is not?
The government routinely endorses political viewpoints. It's what it is
supposed to do. It's why we elect certain people rather than others.
So flying a 'Trump 2024' flag over a public building would be okay
with you?
No because that action would likely violate campaign finance laws.
I doubt it. There is no 'Trump 2024' and there is no 2024 campaign.
It's just a dream for the future and that's always a good thing to fly
over our public buildings.
We've already been through that "dream" which most voters think was an
authoritarian nightmare.
Do you think they'll have an epiphany and want to go through that
nightmare again, especially when the details of the most corrupt
administration in American history are leaking out daily.
What authoritarian nightmare?
The one inflicted on us from Jan 20 2017 to Jan 20 2021.  That one.
That time period was not authoritarian.
Absolutely it was.
Rudy Canoza
2021-06-12 15:34:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[followups vandalism by shitbag *LYING* *PHILANDERING* *ZERO-time-value*
pastor-to-the-KKK repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag to be flown
over government installations. This is the government openly endorsing a
specific political agenda.
No need to read past that lie.
"A conservative mayor heard tearful stories. They changed his mind about
flying the rainbow flag"
When the Fresno City Council voted recently to observe LGBTQ Pride Month by
flying the rainbow flag at City Hall, Mayor Jerry Dyer’s objection was not
surprising.
A Republican who loudly and proudly advertises his faith as a born-again
Christian, the mayor expressed concern about the precedent the left-leaning
council would set and the divisions it would cause. Which other flags should
be honored by the city? What about hoisting religious flags at the futuristic
civic hub?
Throughout the country, fights over flying the pride flag have become a spring
perennial, like crocuses, though far less lovely. And sure enough the 5-2 vote
led to the very division the mayor had hoped to avoid.
Naturally, it turned into a partisan fight as well.
Local Democrats weighed in with a statement extolling the flag raising as a
way “to inspire hope and create a feeling of inclusion.” Local Republicans
called the move “short-sighted and extreme.”
Then Dyer did something unusual. Rather than dig in to his position and swat
away critics, he listened.
He read the emails that flooded his office. He reviewed the hundreds of
voicemails people left. He talked to constituents, at Starbucks and at church.
He heard tearful stories about gay, lesbian and transgender people being
ostracized, or cast aside by family and friends.
He changed his mind.
[...]
A gay friend suggested the mayor attend the pride ceremony at Fresno City
College and, after talking to its president, Dyer showed up among the crowd of
50 or so. He hung back and tried not to draw too much attention.
He listened some more. He was particularly moved, Dyer said later, when the
college president, Carole Goldsmith, “talked about how when she told her
parents for the first time that she was gay ... how she had been asked to
leave the home. How that broke her heart.
“And then the countless stories of other people who had felt excluded,” Dyer
went on, “been excluded from friends that walked away from them, family that
walked away from them, churches that, in their eyes, had excluded them.”
Hours later, just over a week after the council vote, Goldsmith joined Dyer at
an emotional news conference where he announced his change of heart and said
he supported flying the pride flag at City Hall. A formal ceremony is set for
Friday.
In an interview, Dyer acknowledged his changed position might cost him support
among fellow Republicans and conservative Christians, but he said the matter
transcended politics. “I have my foundational faith in Christ, I don’t hide
that,” Dyer said. “But I don’t want that to stand in the way of me causing
people to feel loved and supported in our community.”
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-06-10/gay-pride-flag-fresno-mayor-jerry-dyer
Dyer changed his mind because, unlike you, he understands what the *important*
part of Christ's teachings are, and he takes them seriously.  You're just a
fucking hypocrite.
Until you acknowledge the divinity of Christ, and acknowledge the purpose of his
incarnation, you have no idea what the important part of his teachings are.
Bullshit. The important part of the teachings is loving your fellow man.
Gettin' rahht wif the Lawwwrd in order to be saved is bullshit. There is no
"divinity."
Rudy Canoza
2021-06-12 15:57:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[followups vandalism by shitbag *LYING* *PHILANDERING* *ZERO-time-value*
pastor-to-the-KKK repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
[followups vandalism by shitbag *LYING* *PHILANDERING* *ZERO-time-value*
pastor-to-the-KKK repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag to be flown
over government installations. This is the government openly endorsing a
specific political agenda.
No need to read past that lie.
"A conservative mayor heard tearful stories. They changed his mind about
flying the rainbow flag"
When the Fresno City Council voted recently to observe LGBTQ Pride Month by
flying the rainbow flag at City Hall, Mayor Jerry Dyer’s objection was not
surprising.
A Republican who loudly and proudly advertises his faith as a born-again
Christian, the mayor expressed concern about the precedent the left-leaning
council would set and the divisions it would cause. Which other flags should
be honored by the city? What about hoisting religious flags at the
futuristic civic hub?
Throughout the country, fights over flying the pride flag have become a
spring perennial, like crocuses, though far less lovely. And sure enough the
5-2 vote led to the very division the mayor had hoped to avoid.
Naturally, it turned into a partisan fight as well.
Local Democrats weighed in with a statement extolling the flag raising as a
way “to inspire hope and create a feeling of inclusion.” Local Republicans
called the move “short-sighted and extreme.”
Then Dyer did something unusual. Rather than dig in to his position and swat
away critics, he listened.
He read the emails that flooded his office. He reviewed the hundreds of
voicemails people left. He talked to constituents, at Starbucks and at
church. He heard tearful stories about gay, lesbian and transgender people
being ostracized, or cast aside by family and friends.
He changed his mind.
[...]
A gay friend suggested the mayor attend the pride ceremony at Fresno City
College and, after talking to its president, Dyer showed up among the crowd
of 50 or so. He hung back and tried not to draw too much attention.
He listened some more. He was particularly moved, Dyer said later, when the
college president, Carole Goldsmith, “talked about how when she told her
parents for the first time that she was gay ... how she had been asked to
leave the home. How that broke her heart.
“And then the countless stories of other people who had felt excluded,” Dyer
went on, “been excluded from friends that walked away from them, family that
walked away from them, churches that, in their eyes, had excluded them.”
Hours later, just over a week after the council vote, Goldsmith joined Dyer
at an emotional news conference where he announced his change of heart and
said he supported flying the pride flag at City Hall. A formal ceremony is
set for Friday.
In an interview, Dyer acknowledged his changed position might cost him
support among fellow Republicans and conservative Christians, but he said
the matter transcended politics. “I have my foundational faith in Christ, I
don’t hide that,” Dyer said. “But I don’t want that to stand in the way of
me causing people to feel loved and supported in our community.”
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-06-10/gay-pride-flag-fresno-mayor-jerry-dyer
Dyer changed his mind because, unlike you, he understands what the
*important* part of Christ's teachings are, and he takes them seriously.
You're just a fucking hypocrite.
Until you acknowledge the divinity of Christ, and acknowledge the purpose of
his incarnation, you have no idea what the important part of his teachings are.
Bullshit.  The important part of the teachings is loving your fellow man.
Gettin' rahht wif the Lawwwrd in order to be saved is bullshit. There is no
"divinity."
Are you claiming that non-believers get to determine what is proper Christian
doctrine?
I'm instructing you on what is the important part of Christ's teaching. It
isn't the salvation bullshit. That's what all the mainline denominations say.
The salvation bullshit is just mental masturbation for downmarket assholes like you.
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-13 00:04:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 14:02:59 -0500, David Hartung
Post by Rudy Canoza
[followups vandalism by shitbag *LYING* *PHILANDERING*
*ZERO-time-value* pastor-to-the-KKK repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
[followups vandalism by shitbag *LYING* *PHILANDERING*
*ZERO-time-value* pastor-to-the-KKK repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the
government openly endorsing a specific political agenda.
No need to read past that lie.
"A conservative mayor heard tearful stories. They changed his
mind about flying the rainbow flag"
When the Fresno City Council voted recently to observe LGBTQ
Pride Month by flying the rainbow flag at City Hall, Mayor Jerry
Dyer’s objection was not surprising.
A Republican who loudly and proudly advertises his faith as a
born-again Christian, the mayor expressed concern about the
precedent the left-leaning council would set and the divisions it
would cause. Which other flags should be honored by the city?
What about hoisting religious flags at the futuristic civic hub?
Throughout the country, fights over flying the pride flag have
become a spring perennial, like crocuses, though far less lovely.
And sure enough the 5-2 vote led to the very division the mayor
had hoped to avoid.
Naturally, it turned into a partisan fight as well.
Local Democrats weighed in with a statement extolling the flag
raising as a way “to inspire hope and create a feeling of
inclusion.” Local Republicans called the move “short-sighted and
extreme.”
Then Dyer did something unusual. Rather than dig in to his
position and swat away critics, he listened.
He read the emails that flooded his office. He reviewed the
hundreds of voicemails people left. He talked to constituents, at
Starbucks and at church. He heard tearful stories about gay,
lesbian and transgender people being ostracized, or cast aside by
family and friends.
He changed his mind.
[...]
A gay friend suggested the mayor attend the pride ceremony at
Fresno City College and, after talking to its president, Dyer
showed up among the crowd of 50 or so. He hung back and tried not
to draw too much attention.
He listened some more. He was particularly moved, Dyer said
later, when the college president, Carole Goldsmith, “talked
about how when she told her parents for the first time that she
was gay ... how she had been asked to leave the home. How that
broke her heart.
“And then the countless stories of other people who had felt
excluded,” Dyer went on, “been excluded from friends that walked
away from them, family that walked away from them, churches that,
in their eyes, had excluded them.”
Hours later, just over a week after the council vote, Goldsmith
joined Dyer at an emotional news conference where he announced
his change of heart and said he supported flying the pride flag
at City Hall. A formal ceremony is set for Friday.
In an interview, Dyer acknowledged his changed position might
cost him support among fellow Republicans and conservative
Christians, but he said the matter transcended politics. “I have
my foundational faith in Christ, I don’t hide that,” Dyer said.
“But I don’t want that to stand in the way of me causing people
to feel loved and supported in our community.”
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-06-10/gay-pride-flag-fresno-mayor-jerry-dyer
Dyer changed his mind because, unlike you, he understands what
the *important* part of Christ's teachings are, and he takes them
seriously. You're just a fucking hypocrite.
Until you acknowledge the divinity of Christ, and acknowledge the
purpose of his incarnation, you have no idea what the important
part of his teachings are.
Bullshit.  The important part of the teachings is loving your
fellow man. Gettin' rahht wif the Lawwwrd in order to be saved is
bullshit. There is no "divinity."
Are you claiming that non-believers get to determine what is proper
Christian doctrine?
I'm instructing you on what is the important part of Christ's
teaching. It isn't the salvation bullshit.  That's what all the
mainline denominations say. The salvation bullshit is just mental
masturbation for downmarket assholes like you.
Yes, I get it, you are doing exactly what I said. It doesn't work that
way. You do not get to dictate doctrine to a Christian, any Christian.
You are neither Christian nor *a* Christian.  You make a mockery of
Christ's teachings.  Seeking salvation is not the important part, and in
fact is bullshit.
Believe what you wish.
The important part is loving other humans.
Something at which you fail dismally.
Rudy finds "love" at the Jolly Kone every weekend.

<snickers>
Bill Flett
2021-06-13 00:11:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 14:02:59 -0500, David Hartung
Post by Rudy Canoza
[followups vandalism by shitbag *LYING* *PHILANDERING*
*ZERO-time-value* pastor-to-the-KKK repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
[followups vandalism by shitbag *LYING* *PHILANDERING*
*ZERO-time-value* pastor-to-the-KKK repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
Apparently the Federal government is allowing the "pride" flag
to be flown over government installations. This is the
government openly endorsing a specific political agenda.
No need to read past that lie.
"A conservative mayor heard tearful stories. They changed his
mind about flying the rainbow flag"
When the Fresno City Council voted recently to observe LGBTQ
Pride Month by flying the rainbow flag at City Hall, Mayor Jerry
Dyer’s objection was not surprising.
A Republican who loudly and proudly advertises his faith as a
born-again Christian, the mayor expressed concern about the
precedent the left-leaning council would set and the divisions it
would cause. Which other flags should be honored by the city?
What about hoisting religious flags at the futuristic civic hub?
Throughout the country, fights over flying the pride flag have
become a spring perennial, like crocuses, though far less lovely.
And sure enough the 5-2 vote led to the very division the mayor
had hoped to avoid.
Naturally, it turned into a partisan fight as well.
Local Democrats weighed in with a statement extolling the flag
raising as a way “to inspire hope and create a feeling of
inclusion.” Local Republicans called the move “short-sighted and
extreme.”
Then Dyer did something unusual. Rather than dig in to his
position and swat away critics, he listened.
He read the emails that flooded his office. He reviewed the
hundreds of voicemails people left. He talked to constituents, at
Starbucks and at church. He heard tearful stories about gay,
lesbian and transgender people being ostracized, or cast aside by
family and friends.
He changed his mind.
[...]
A gay friend suggested the mayor attend the pride ceremony at
Fresno City College and, after talking to its president, Dyer
showed up among the crowd of 50 or so. He hung back and tried not
to draw too much attention.
He listened some more. He was particularly moved, Dyer said
later, when the college president, Carole Goldsmith, “talked
about how when she told her parents for the first time that she
was gay ... how she had been asked to leave the home. How that
broke her heart.
“And then the countless stories of other people who had felt
excluded,” Dyer went on, “been excluded from friends that walked
away from them, family that walked away from them, churches that,
in their eyes, had excluded them.”
Hours later, just over a week after the council vote, Goldsmith
joined Dyer at an emotional news conference where he announced
his change of heart and said he supported flying the pride flag
at City Hall. A formal ceremony is set for Friday.
In an interview, Dyer acknowledged his changed position might
cost him support among fellow Republicans and conservative
Christians, but he said the matter transcended politics. “I have
my foundational faith in Christ, I don’t hide that,” Dyer said.
“But I don’t want that to stand in the way of me causing people
to feel loved and supported in our community.”
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-06-10/gay-pride-flag-fresno-mayor-jerry-dyer
Dyer changed his mind because, unlike you, he understands what
the *important* part of Christ's teachings are, and he takes them
seriously. You're just a fucking hypocrite.
Until you acknowledge the divinity of Christ, and acknowledge the
purpose of his incarnation, you have no idea what the important
part of his teachings are.
Bullshit.  The important part of the teachings is loving your
fellow man. Gettin' rahht wif the Lawwwrd in order to be saved is
bullshit. There is no "divinity."
Are you claiming that non-believers get to determine what is proper
Christian doctrine?
I'm instructing you on what is the important part of Christ's
teaching. It isn't the salvation bullshit.  That's what all the
mainline denominations say. The salvation bullshit is just mental
masturbation for downmarket assholes like you.
Yes, I get it, you are doing exactly what I said. It doesn't work that
way. You do not get to dictate doctrine to a Christian, any Christian.
You are neither Christian nor *a* Christian.  You make a mockery of
Christ's teachings.  Seeking salvation is not the important part, and in
fact is bullshit.
Believe what you wish.
The important part is loving other humans.
Something at which you fail dismally.
I find "love" at the Jolly Kone every weekend.
What?! You actually find it there every day!
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-13 10:42:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 04:17:52 -0500, David Hartung
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S. Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party attempted
to deny LGBT people?
None. LGBTQABCXYZ++ people have the same rights as our laws provide.
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-13 15:45:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S. Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party attempted to deny
LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
Where is that written as a right, dwarf?

Be specific.

------
Here's Rudy's dream of beating up on his opponents:


Bill Flett
2021-06-13 15:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S. Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party attempted to deny
LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
Where is that written as a right, Prof. Canoza?
It doesn't need to be. Our rights do not exist due to being written. That gets
it backward.
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-13 15:56:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?

(Wait for it, folks. I have the feeling a 'keeper' is coming!)
\
---
"I'd like to see you on a ventilator, taking your last gasps."
---"Omni Vore" 6/12/21
Bill Flett
2021-06-13 16:04:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Bill Flett
Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept useful for human
survival. Rights exist as a direct consequence of evolution. No law or bill
ever "created" a right. As Justice Scalia noted in Heller, the second amendment
*secured* the right to arms. It did not create it.

You are far out of your depth in this area.
David Hartung
2021-06-13 18:16:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept useful for
human survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence of evolution.  No
law or bill ever "created" a right.  As Justice Scalia noted in Heller,
the second amendment *secured* the right to arms.  It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-13 18:30:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 13:16:13 -0500, David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept useful for
human survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence of evolution.  No
law or bill ever "created" a right.  As Justice Scalia noted in Heller,
the second amendment *secured* the right to arms.  It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
It prevents dwarves from reproducing.
Mitchell Holman
2021-06-13 18:36:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in
your view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept useful
for human survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence of
evolution.  No law or bill ever "created" a right.  As Justice
Scalia noted in Heller, the second amendment *secured* the right to
arms.  It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
What does ANY marriage have to do
with being "useful for human survival"?
Mitchell Holman
2021-06-14 01:55:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in
your view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept useful
for human survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence of
evolution.  No law or bill ever "created" a right.  As Justice
Scalia noted in Heller, the second amendment *secured* the right to
arms.  It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
What does ANY marriage have to do
with being "useful for human survival"?
Well, Hartung?
BeamMeUpScotty
2021-06-14 15:34:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in
your view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept useful
for human survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence of
evolution.  No law or bill ever "created" a right.  As Justice
Scalia noted in Heller, the second amendment *secured* the right to
arms.  It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
What does ANY marriage have to do
with being "useful for human survival"?
Well, Hartung?
It's the codification of a religious ceremony.

Which was the Chrurch taking control of couples/Families unions for
political and monetary gain.

Why do Moonies do what they do?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/surreal-photos-from-a-moonie-mass-wedding
--
That's karma


Censorship is a form of violence, using force to silence those you hate.

Censorship is HATE personified... Hate groups use censorship to help
force those they hate to be gagged and silenced.

Censorship becomes a hate crime when it's illegally forced on citizens.

Censorship of this document in part or in whole is an admission of your
belonging to a VIOLENT HATE GROUP.
Bill Flett
2021-06-13 20:07:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept useful for human
survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence of evolution.  No law or bill
ever "created" a right.  As Justice Scalia noted in Heller, the second
amendment *secured* the right to arms.  It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
Rights are useful for human survival. The general right to do as you wish so
long as no one else is harmed is useful for human survival. Two queers getting
married does not harm you in any way. You need to stay the fuck out of it.
David Hartung
2021-06-14 00:33:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept useful
for human survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence of
evolution.  No law or bill ever "created" a right.  As Justice Scalia
noted in Heller, the second amendment *secured* the right to arms.
It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
Rights are useful for human survival.  The general right to do as you
wish so long as no one else is harmed is useful for human survival.  Two
queers getting married does not harm you in any way.  You need to stay
the fuck out of it.
I see.

Should I legally acquire an M-60 machine gun, you are not harmed in any
way, so why should my right to do so be proscribed by the government?
Bill Flett
2021-06-14 00:39:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept useful for human
survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence of evolution.  No law or
bill ever "created" a right.  As Justice Scalia noted in Heller, the second
amendment *secured* the right to arms. It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
Rights are useful for human survival.  The general right to do as you wish so
long as no one else is harmed is useful for human survival.  Two queers
getting married does not harm you in any way.  You need to stay the fuck out
of it.
I see.
You don't. That's just your typical lame, stale lie/trope when you have nothing
meaningful to say.
David Hartung
2021-06-14 01:17:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept useful
for human survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence of
evolution.  No law or bill ever "created" a right.  As Justice
Scalia noted in Heller, the second amendment *secured* the right to
arms. It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
Rights are useful for human survival.  The general right to do as you
wish so long as no one else is harmed is useful for human survival.
Two queers getting married does not harm you in any way.  You need to
stay the fuck out of it.
I see.
You don't.  That's just your typical lame, stale lie/trope when you have
nothing meaningful to say.
And you failed to respond to this:
Should I legally acquire an M-60 machine gun, you are not harmed in any
way, so why should my right to do so be proscribed by the government?
Mitchell Holman
2021-06-14 02:03:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 08:49:31 -0700, Bill Flett
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept
useful for human survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence
of evolution.  No law or bill ever "created" a right.  As
Justice Scalia noted in Heller, the second amendment *secured*
the right to arms. It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
Rights are useful for human survival.  The general right to do as
you wish so long as no one else is harmed is useful for human
survival. Two queers getting married does not harm you in any
way.  You need to stay the fuck out of it.
I see.
You don't.  That's just your typical lame, stale lie/trope when you
have nothing meaningful to say.
Should I legally acquire an M-60 machine gun, you are not harmed in
any way, so why should my right to do so be proscribed by the
government?
To paraphrase:


Should I legally acquire a second wife, you are not harmed in
any way, so why should my right to do so be proscribed by the
government?
BeamMeUpScotty
2021-06-14 15:37:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 08:49:31 -0700, Bill Flett
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept
useful for human survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence
of evolution.  No law or bill ever "created" a right.  As
Justice Scalia noted in Heller, the second amendment *secured*
the right to arms. It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
Rights are useful for human survival.  The general right to do as
you wish so long as no one else is harmed is useful for human
survival. Two queers getting married does not harm you in any
way.  You need to stay the fuck out of it.
I see.
You don't.  That's just your typical lame, stale lie/trope when you
have nothing meaningful to say.
Should I legally acquire an M-60 machine gun, you are not harmed in
any way, so why should my right to do so be proscribed by the
government?
Should I legally acquire a second wife, you are not harmed in
any way, so why should my right to do so be proscribed by the
government?
It may be a catch-22, crazy people aren't allowed to marry because they
can't take care of themselves or their family, and wanting to have more
than one woman nagging and bitching and moaning at you, is proof of
insanity?
--
That's karma


Censorship is a form of violence, using force to silence those you hate.

Censorship is HATE personified... Hate groups use censorship to help
force those they hate to be gagged and silenced.

Censorship becomes a hate crime when it's illegally forced on citizens.

Censorship of this document in part or in whole is an admission of your
belonging to a VIOLENT HATE GROUP.
Bill Flett
2021-06-14 02:29:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept useful for
human survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence of evolution.  No
law or bill ever "created" a right.  As Justice Scalia noted in Heller,
the second amendment *secured* the right to arms. It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
Rights are useful for human survival.  The general right to do as you wish
so long as no one else is harmed is useful for human survival. Two queers
getting married does not harm you in any way.  You need to stay the fuck out
of it.
I see.
You don't.  That's just your typical lame, stale lie/trope when you have
nothing meaningful to say.
Should I legally acquire an M-60 machine gun, you are not harmed in any way
False.
David Hartung
2021-06-14 09:23:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 08:49:31 -0700, Bill Flett
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept
useful for human survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence
of evolution.  No law or bill ever "created" a right.  As Justice
Scalia noted in Heller, the second amendment *secured* the right
to arms. It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
Rights are useful for human survival.  The general right to do as
you wish so long as no one else is harmed is useful for human
survival. Two queers getting married does not harm you in any way.
You need to stay the fuck out of it.
I see.
You don't.  That's just your typical lame, stale lie/trope when you
have nothing meaningful to say.
Should I legally acquire an M-60 machine gun, you are not harmed in any way
False.
Why?
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-14 10:44:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 04:23:47 -0500, David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 08:49:31 -0700, Bill Flett
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept
useful for human survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence
of evolution.  No law or bill ever "created" a right.  As Justice
Scalia noted in Heller, the second amendment *secured* the right
to arms. It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
Rights are useful for human survival.  The general right to do as
you wish so long as no one else is harmed is useful for human
survival. Two queers getting married does not harm you in any way.
You need to stay the fuck out of it.
I see.
You don't.  That's just your typical lame, stale lie/trope when you
have nothing meaningful to say.
Should I legally acquire an M-60 machine gun, you are not harmed in any way
False.
Why?
Dwarf could answer your question, but then he'd have to fist fight
you.
David Hartung
2021-06-15 00:55:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept useful
for human survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence of
evolution.  No law or bill ever "created" a right.  As Justice
Scalia noted in Heller, the second amendment *secured* the right
to arms. It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
Rights are useful for human survival.  The general right to do as
you wish so long as no one else is harmed is useful for human
survival. Two queers getting married does not harm you in any way.
You need to stay the fuck out of it.
I see.
You don't.  That's just your typical lame, stale lie/trope when you
have nothing meaningful to say.
Should I legally acquire an M-60 machine gun, you are not harmed in any
way, so why should my right to do so be proscribed by the government?
It seems that our leftist friends are reluctant to address this.
Siri Cruise
2021-06-15 01:19:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Should I legally acquire an M-60 machine gun, you are not harmed in any
way, so why should my right to do so be proscribed by the government?
It seems that our leftist friends are reluctant to address this.
Firing a single round will wake the entire county and get you
locked up for noise complaints.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed
BeamMeUpScotty
2021-06-15 13:45:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Should I legally acquire an M-60 machine gun, you are not harmed in any
way, so why should my right to do so be proscribed by the government?
It seems that our leftist friends are reluctant to address this.
Firing a single round will wake the entire county and get you
locked up for noise complaints.
There is no legal problem, until the gun is used to save his life?

Seems like waking a few people for him to stay alive might be worth the
government fine that's charged for noise violations.

I hear cars with RAP on the radio making noise at 1:00AM.... should we
ban all stereos? Or should we just ban the RAP noise.... Or maybe just
playing those CD's during standard sleeping hours for school children?
--
That's karma


Censorship is a form of violence, using force to silence those you hate.

Censorship is HATE personified... Hate groups use censorship to help
force those they hate to be gagged and silenced.

Censorship becomes a hate crime when it's illegally forced on citizens.

Censorship of this document in part or in whole is an admission of your
belonging to a VIOLENT HATE GROUP.
Mitchell Holman
2021-06-15 02:04:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 08:49:31 -0700, Bill Flett
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept
useful for human survival.  Rights exist as a direct
consequence of evolution.  No law or bill ever "created" a
right.  As Justice Scalia noted in Heller, the second amendment
*secured* the right to arms. It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
Rights are useful for human survival.  The general right to do as
you wish so long as no one else is harmed is useful for human
survival. Two queers getting married does not harm you in any way.
You need to stay the fuck out of it.
I see.
You don't.  That's just your typical lame, stale lie/trope when you
have nothing meaningful to say.
Should I legally acquire an M-60 machine gun, you are not harmed in
any way, so why should my right to do so be proscribed by the
government?
It seems that our leftist friends are reluctant to address this.
Should you take your legally acquired M 60 machine
gun to the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel in
Las Vegas and train it on the concert crowd below
would the government have any right to intervene?
BeamMeUpScotty
2021-06-15 13:02:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 08:49:31 -0700, Bill Flett
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept
useful for human survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence
of evolution.  No law or bill ever "created" a right.  As Justice
Scalia noted in Heller, the second amendment *secured* the right
to arms. It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
Rights are useful for human survival.  The general right to do as
you wish so long as no one else is harmed is useful for human
survival. Two queers getting married does not harm you in any way. 
You need to stay the fuck out of it.
I see.
You don't.  That's just your typical lame, stale lie/trope when you
have nothing meaningful to say.
Should I legally acquire an M-60 machine gun, you are not harmed in
any way, so why should my right to do so be proscribed by the government?
It seems that our leftist friends are reluctant to address this.
When the Democrats try to ignore you and cancel you, you know you've
caused them to go into mental overload and they have no way to
rationalize their FAKE NEWS and FAKE FACTS.

They rarely respond to me... it appears to be too painful for them to
have to admit they're wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_complex
A god complex is an unshakable belief characterized by consistently
inflated feelings of personal ability, privilege, or infallibility. A
*person with a god complex may refuse to admit the possibility of* their
*error or failure* , *even in the face of irrefutable evidence* ,
intractable problems or difficult or impossible tasks.
--
That's karma


Censorship is a form of violence, using force to silence those you hate.

Censorship is HATE personified... Hate groups use censorship to help
force those they hate to be gagged and silenced.

Censorship becomes a hate crime when it's illegally forced on citizens.

Censorship of this document in part or in whole is an admission of your
belonging to a VIOLENT HATE GROUP.
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-14 01:31:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept useful for human
survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence of evolution.  No law or bill
ever "created" a right.  As Justice Scalia noted in Heller, the second
amendment *secured* the right to arms.  It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
Rights are useful for human survival.
Like when they prevent dwarves from reproducing.
Bill Flett
2021-06-14 02:32:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive of them and find the concept useful for human
survival.  Rights exist as a direct consequence of evolution.  No law or bill
ever "created" a right.  As Justice Scalia noted in Heller, the second
amendment *secured* the right to arms.  It did not create it.
Exactly how is same sex marriage useful for human survival?
Rights are useful for human survival.
Like when they lead to me being put in prison.
Yes.
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-14 01:31:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Bill Flett
Our rights do not exist due to being written.
By what method do they exist and how do we know what they are, in your
view?
They exist because we conceive
You conceive your cloud of sock puppets,dwarf. Nothing more..
Post by Bill Flett
No law or bill
ever "created" a right.
No law or bill ever "created" a trash mouth, forging sockpuppet
either.

Hahaha.
Post by Bill Flett
As Justice Scalia noted...
I hear Justice Scalia noted you couldn't go 1 round with him at the
Jolly Kone.

Dwarf.
Post by Bill Flett
You are far out of your depth in this area.
I'm told that's what Klaus says before he beats the krapola out of you
every weekend at the Jolly Kone.
David Hartung
2021-06-13 18:15:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S. Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party attempted to deny
LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
Where is that written as a right, Prof. Canoza?
It doesn't need to be.  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
That gets it backward.
The question is still valid. what is the source of this so-called right?
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-13 18:29:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 13:15:17 -0500, David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S. Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party attempted to deny
LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
Where is that written as a right, Prof. Canoza?
It doesn't need to be.  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
That gets it backward.
The question is still valid. what is the source of this so-called right?
Rudy believes rights came from evolution: first came pond scum, then
came dwarves, then came rights.

Just ask him.
Bill Flett
2021-06-13 20:09:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 13:15:17 -0500, David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S. Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party attempted to deny
LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
Where is that written as a right, Prof. Canoza?
It doesn't need to be.  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
That gets it backward.
The question is still valid. what is the source of this so-called right?
Rudy believes rights came from evolution
Rights are a product of human evolution.
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-14 01:31:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 13:15:17 -0500, David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S. Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party
attempted to deny
LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
Where is that written as a right, Prof. Canoza?
It doesn't need to be.  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
That gets it backward.
The question is still valid. what is the source of this so-called right?
Rudy believes rights came from evolution
Rights are a product of human evolution.
Rights don't come from pond scum, dwarf.

Like Locke and Jefferson said, they come from God and are therefore
inalienable.

You know this. You hate this. But it's true.

Dwarf.
Bill Flett
2021-06-14 02:32:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 13:15:17 -0500, David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S. Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party
attempted to deny
LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
Where is that written as a right, Prof. Canoza?
It doesn't need to be.  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
That gets it backward.
The question is still valid. what is the source of this so-called right?
Rudy believes rights came from evolution
Rights are a product of human evolution.
Rights don't come from pond scum
I never said they did.

Evolution is real. Human evolution is the source of rights. This is settled.
Bill Flett
2021-06-13 20:05:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S. Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party attempted to deny
LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
Where is that written as a right, Prof. Canoza?
It doesn't need to be.  Our rights do not exist due to being written. That
gets it backward.
The question is still valid. what is the source of this so-called right?
I've instructed you on that before. Now you're only sealioning.

Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or
harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for
evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and
sincerity. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage
in debate".

The troll feigns ignorance and politeness, so that if the target is provoked
into making an angry response, the troll can then act as the aggrieved party.
Sealioning can be performed by a single troll or by multiple ones acting in
concert. The technique of sealioning has been compared to the Gish gallop and
metaphorically described as a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Arp! Arp! Arp!
David Hartung
2021-06-14 00:37:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by David Hartung
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S.
Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party attempted to deny
LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
Where is that written as a right, Prof. Canoza?
It doesn't need to be.  Our rights do not exist due to being written.
That gets it backward.
The question is still valid. what is the source of this so-called right?
I've instructed you on that before.
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex
marriage. Just to be clear, same sex marriage is not the same thing as
gay or lesbian sex.
Bill Flett
2021-06-14 00:45:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by David Hartung
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S. Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party attempted
to deny
LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
Where is that written as a right, Prof. Canoza?
It doesn't need to be.  Our rights do not exist due to being written. That
gets it backward.
The question is still valid. what is the source of this so-called right?
I've instructed you on that before.
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex marriage.
I have explained the origin of rights. You could not counter it, obviously.

There is a right to same sex marriage because there is no valid reason why there
should not be. Two queers getting married falls under the category of people
having a right to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else.
Neither you nor anyone else can show any harm from queer being allowed to
marry; ergo, queers should have the right to marry.

You know you simply lost on this. Why can't you move along to your next angry
troll?
Mitchell Holman
2021-06-14 02:05:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex
marriage.
Is there a right to an interracial marriage?
David Hartung
2021-06-15 00:54:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex
marriage.
Is there a right to an interracial marriage?
Not an answer.
Rudy Canoza
2021-06-15 01:08:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex
marriage.
     Is there a right to an interracial marriage?
Not an answer.
It was a good question, and you don't have an answer.
BeamMeUpScotty
2021-06-15 13:36:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex
marriage.
     Is there a right to an interracial marriage?
Not an answer.
It was a good question, and you don't have an answer.
There is NO inalienable RIGHT to marriage... because it was created by
the government. *That makes it a civil liberty* which is accessible to
all under the *equal protection of the law* clause in the 14th Amendment
and nothing I mentioned makes it a "RIGHT" it was created by government
and the papers are government documents and have ZERO to do with love or
family ties. Its a government document wile an inalienable RIGHT, one
that exists always and comes inherent with life.... wasn't created by
government and can't be taken away by the government.

So while inter-racial and inter-sexual-identities are your personal
choice and an inalienable RIGHT because they exist whether the
government is there or NOT, extending that to marriage is not logical
since marriage is a MATRIX TYPE OF CONSTRUCT that's only there while the
government exists.

Which is why marriage as a document and institution is a government
institution, and is only a *civil liberty* sometimes called a "civil
right" as it's a civil government type of creation.

Which means the logical answer is that no, you do not have an
INALIENABLE RIGHT to an inter-racial marriage unless the government is
bound by the constitution to base all law on the FACT that your
inalienable rights are superior to all government laws.

But then gays and TRANS aren't a fact they're part of a mentally ill
delusion. So mixing the fact of racial sub species with the myth of
gays/TRANS imaginary sub species is creating a fallacy.

And we see with the *commerce clause* that our inalienable right to NOT
be forced by government into commerce on the basis of race or sexual
identity has been violated, meaning that the philosophical
interpretations from the Supreme Court have chosen to ignore our
inalienable rights to choice.

In theory we're supposed to have inalienable rights that the government
can NOT violate, in reality we're denied those rights when ever the
government decides to ignore them.

Marriage is meaningless to your inalienable right to associate unless
you believe the government has the power to regulate it. It's a
personal-identity, which is also supposed to be meaningless unless
government can regulate it.
--
That's karma


Censorship is a form of violence, using force to silence those you hate.

Censorship is HATE personified... Hate groups use censorship to help
force those they hate to be gagged and silenced.

Censorship becomes a hate crime when it's illegally forced on citizens.

Censorship of this document in part or in whole is an admission of your
belonging to a VIOLENT HATE GROUP.
Siri Cruise
2021-06-15 01:20:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex
marriage.
Is there a right to an interracial marriage?
Not an answer.
Justify your answer without invoking religion.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed
Mitchell Holman
2021-06-15 01:57:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex
marriage.
Is there a right to an interracial marriage?
Not an answer.
You didn't ask one.

Answer the question *I* posted.
Omni Vore
2021-06-17 03:25:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex
marriage.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the
Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and
recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

Just to be clear, same sex marriage is not the same thing as
Post by David Hartung
gay or lesbian sex.
Just to be clear, you are one of the singularly stupidest motherfuckers
to post on Usenet, you brain-dead mansplaining reichtard.
David Hartung
2021-06-17 09:18:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Omni Vore
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex marriage.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the
Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and
recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
That explains the legal right, what is the moral and social foundation
for same sex marriage?
Post by Omni Vore
 Just to be clear, same sex marriage is not the same thing as
gay or lesbian sex.
The two are related. Straight people will almost always wish to marry
someone of the opposite sex. In fact I cannot think of a single instance
in which that is not the case.
Post by Omni Vore
Just to be clear, you are one of the singularly stupidest motherfuckers
to post on Usenet, you brain-dead mansplaining reichtard.
Why thank you.
Siri Cruise
2021-06-17 09:57:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
That explains the legal right, what is the moral and social foundation
for same sex marriage?
It's in Vaughn's opinion.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed
Mitchell Holman
2021-06-17 12:59:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex marriage.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision
that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex
marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
That explains the legal right, what is the moral and social foundation
for same sex marriage?
Why does *anything* need a "moral and social foundation"?
Post by David Hartung
 Just to be clear, same sex marriage is not the same thing as
gay or lesbian sex.
The two are related. Straight people will almost always wish to marry
someone of the opposite sex. In fact I cannot think of a single
instance in which that is not the case.
Just to be clear, you are one of the singularly stupidest
motherfuckers to post on Usenet, you brain-dead mansplaining
reichtard.
Why thank you.
David Hartung
2021-06-17 13:09:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by Omni Vore
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex marriage.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision
that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex
marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
That explains the legal right, what is the moral and social foundation
for same sex marriage?
Why does *anything* need a "moral and social foundation"?
Perhaps because it ultimately makes for a stronger culture?
Mitchell Holman
2021-06-17 13:26:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex marriage.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision
that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex
marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
That explains the legal right, what is the moral and social foundation
for same sex marriage?
Why does *anything* need a "moral and social foundation"?
Perhaps because it ultimately makes for a stronger culture?
You don't say.

Proof?
Mitchell Holman
2021-06-17 18:05:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex marriage.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision
that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex
marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
That explains the legal right, what is the moral and social foundation
for same sex marriage?
Why does *anything* need a "moral and social foundation"?
Perhaps because it ultimately makes for a stronger culture?
You don't say.
Proof?
Well, Hartung?
Bill Flett
2021-06-17 14:02:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Omni Vore
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex marriage.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision
that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex
marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
That explains the legal right, what is the moral and social foundation
for same sex marriage?
      Why does *anything* need a "moral and social foundation"?
Perhaps because it ultimately makes for a stronger culture?
Forbidding queers from marrying does not strengthen the culture. It weakens it.
David Hartung
2021-06-17 18:10:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Omni Vore
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex marriage.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision
that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex
marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
That explains the legal right, what is the moral and social foundation
for same sex marriage?
      Why does *anything* need a "moral and social foundation"?
Perhaps because it ultimately makes for a stronger culture?
Forbidding queers from marrying does not strengthen the culture.  It
weakens it.
In what way?

To answer that question properly, you must be able to explain what
marriage is, and why every society for over 4,000 years has had
marriage, and has understood it to be a heterosexual union.
Bill Flett
2021-06-17 18:20:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Omni Vore
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex marriage.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision
that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex
marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
That explains the legal right, what is the moral and social foundation
for same sex marriage?
      Why does *anything* need a "moral and social foundation"?
Perhaps because it ultimately makes for a stronger culture?
Forbidding queers from marrying does not strengthen the culture.  It weakens it.
In what way?
Queers enjoy better mental and physical health when they are married, the same
as straight people do. The improvement in their mental and physical health does
not affect your own.
Post by David Hartung
To answer that question properly, you must be able to explain what marriage is,
and why every society for over 4,000 years has had marriage, and has understood
it to be a heterosexual union.
Marriage is a state-sanctioned legal union between (in most societies) two
persons. It is bullshit when you bleat "marriage 'is' between one man and one
woman" — that's what you want it to be, but that is not a necessary definition
of it.

Queers should be allowed to marry. It doesn't harm you in any meaningful way.
The fact that it pisses you off is just too bad for you, and actually a source
of amusement for decent people.
Omni Vore
2021-06-17 18:38:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Omni Vore
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex marriage.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision
that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex
marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
That explains the legal right, what is the moral and social foundation
for same sex marriage?
      Why does *anything* need a "moral and social foundation"?
Perhaps because it ultimately makes for a stronger culture?
Forbidding queers from marrying does not strengthen the culture.  It weakens it.
In what way?
Queers enjoy better mental and physical health when they are married,
the same as straight people do.  The improvement in their mental and
physical health does not affect your own.
Post by David Hartung
To answer that question properly, you must be able to explain what
marriage is, and why every society for over 4,000 years has had
marriage, and has understood it to be a heterosexual union.
Marriage is a state-sanctioned legal union between (in most societies)
two persons.  It is bullshit when you bleat "marriage 'is' between one
man and one woman" — that's what you want it to be, but that is not a
necessary definition of it.
Queers should be allowed to marry.
Absolutely, boss. The best reason is that faggots married to faggots
means is less likely that faggotism will be spread abroad into the gene
pool. What's not to lik!?
David Hartung
2021-06-17 19:21:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Omni Vore
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex marriage.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision
that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex
marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
That explains the legal right, what is the moral and social foundation
for same sex marriage?
      Why does *anything* need a "moral and social foundation"?
Perhaps because it ultimately makes for a stronger culture?
Forbidding queers from marrying does not strengthen the culture.  It weakens it.
In what way?
Queers enjoy better mental and physical health when they are married,
the same as straight people do.  The improvement in their mental and
physical health does not affect your own.
Your source for this assertion?
Post by Bill Flett
Post by David Hartung
To answer that question properly, you must be able to explain what
marriage is, and why every society for over 4,000 years has had
marriage, and has understood it to be a heterosexual union.
Marriage is a state-sanctioned legal union between (in most societies)
two persons.  It is bullshit when you bleat "marriage 'is' between one
man and one woman" — that's what you want it to be, but that is not a
necessary definition of it.
Given that in many ancient cultures practiced polygamy, I most carefully
did not say between one man and one woman. Again, any defense of same
sex marriage must be able to explain why every major human culture going
back thousands of years saw marriage as a heterosexual union. Same sex
marriage has been recognized in major cultures around the world for not
more than about 35 years, if that long, and your definition is recent.
Post by Bill Flett
Queers should be allowed to marry.  It doesn't harm you in any
meaningful way. The fact that it pisses you off is just too bad for you,
and actually a source of amusement for decent people.
Still not an explanation.
Bill Flett
2021-06-17 19:28:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Omni Vore
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex marriage.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision
that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex
marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
That explains the legal right, what is the moral and social foundation
for same sex marriage?
      Why does *anything* need a "moral and social foundation"?
Perhaps because it ultimately makes for a stronger culture?
Forbidding queers from marrying does not strengthen the culture.  It weakens it.
In what way?
Queers enjoy better mental and physical health when they are married, the same
as straight people do.  The improvement in their mental and physical health
does not affect your own.
Your source for this assertion?
Which one?
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
Post by David Hartung
To answer that question properly, you must be able to explain what marriage
is, and why every society for over 4,000 years has had marriage, and has
understood it to be a heterosexual union.
Marriage is a state-sanctioned legal union between (in most societies) two
persons.  It is bullshit when you bleat "marriage 'is' between one man and one
woman" — that's what you want it to be, but that is not a necessary definition
of it.
Given that in many ancient cultures practiced polygamy, I most carefully did not
say between one man and one woman. Again, any defense of same sex marriage must
be able to explain why every major human culture going back thousands of years
saw marriage as a heterosexual union.
No, it doesn't have to do that. You're committing a classic logical fallacy.
Your Fallacy Is: Argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to tradition
Post by David Hartung
Post by Bill Flett
Queers should be allowed to marry.  It doesn't harm you in any meaningful way.
The fact that it pisses you off is just too bad for you, and actually a source
of amusement for decent people.
Still not an explanation.
It is. They are better off, and you're no worse off. That's an explanation and
argument in support of it.

Bill Flett
2021-06-17 14:00:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Omni Vore
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex marriage.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the
Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and
recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
That explains the legal right, what is the moral and social foundation for same
sex marriage?
People want to marry the consenting adult of their choice. You have given no
good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
Post by Omni Vore
  Just to be clear, same sex marriage is not the same thing as
gay or lesbian sex.
The two are related. Straight people will almost always wish to marry someone of
the opposite sex. In fact I cannot think of a single instance in which that is
not the case.
Post by Omni Vore
Just to be clear, you are one of the singularly stupidest motherfuckers
to post on Usenet, you brain-dead mansplaining reichtard.
David Hartung
2021-06-17 18:11:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Omni Vore
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex marriage.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the
Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and
recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
That explains the legal right, what is the moral and social foundation
for same sex marriage?
People want to marry the consenting adult of their choice.  You have
given no good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
I have made no declaration, I have asked honest questions, questions
which have been asked before and have never been satisfactorily answered.
Bill Flett
2021-06-17 18:21:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Omni Vore
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex marriage.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the
Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and
recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
That explains the legal right, what is the moral and social foundation for
same sex marriage?
People want to marry the consenting adult of their choice.  You have given no
good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
I have made no declaration, I have asked honest questions,
No, you haven't. They are posed (not 'asked') in entirely bad faith. Even
given your dishonesty and bad faith, adequate answers *have* been given to them,
so you're lying in saying there haven't been.
David Hartung
2021-06-17 19:22:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Post by Omni Vore
You have never explained just how there is a right for same sex marriage.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the
Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex
marriages and
recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
That explains the legal right, what is the moral and social
foundation for same sex marriage?
People want to marry the consenting adult of their choice.  You have
given no good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
I have made no declaration, I have asked honest questions,
No, you haven't.
I have.
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-14 01:31:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by David Hartung
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S. Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party attempted to deny
LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
Where is that written as a right, Prof. Canoza?
It doesn't need to be.  Our rights do not exist due to being written. That
gets it backward.
The question is still valid. what is the source of this so-called right?
I've instructed you on that before. Now you're only sealioning.
Sealioning
Rudy brings up his favorite sea creature when he's stumped for
evidence of his latest crackpot theory.
Bill Flett
2021-06-14 02:32:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by David Hartung
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S. Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party attempted to
deny
LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
Where is that written as a right, Prof. Canoza?
It doesn't need to be.  Our rights do not exist due to being written. That
gets it backward.
The question is still valid. what is the source of this so-called right?
I've instructed you on that before. Now you're only sealioning.
Sealioning
Rudy kicks right-wingnuts' asses again.
Yes.
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-13 18:28:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 13:14:20 -0500, David Hartung
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S. Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical
reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond
their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party
attempted to deny LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
I see, and that is the historic understanding of marriage?
No, it isn't. Rudy pulls his 'rights' out of his ass, of course.
David Hartung
2021-06-14 00:38:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 13:14:20 -0500, David Hartung
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S. Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical
reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond
their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party
attempted to deny LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
I see, and that is the historic understanding of marriage?
No, it isn't. Rudy pulls his 'rights' out of his ass, of course.
Of course he does, but he will never admit it.
Bill Flett
2021-06-14 00:45:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 13:14:20 -0500, David Hartung
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S. Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical
reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond
their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party
attempted to deny LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
I see, and that is the historic understanding of marriage?
No, it isn't. Rudy pulls his 'rights' out of his ass, of course.
Of course he does
No. I have thoroughly instructed you on rights.
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-14 01:31:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S. Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party attempted to
deny LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
I see, and that is the historic understanding of marriage?
No one cares about your "historic understanding" of marriage. We aren't bound
by it, nor should we be.
Rudy believes rights 'evolved' like pond scum but,nevertheless, they
have nothing to do with history.
Bill Flett
2021-06-14 02:33:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S. Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can. Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party attempted to
deny LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
I see, and that is the historic understanding of marriage?
No one cares about your "historic understanding" of marriage. We aren't bound
by it, nor should we be.
Rudy believes rights 'evolved'
No. "Rudy" says that rights are a product of human evolution, and as always, he
is right.
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-14 01:33:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 20:18:24 -0500, David Hartung
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political
movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution
about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S.
Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a
religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief
rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other
physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces
beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can.
Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or
vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party
attempted to deny LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
I see, and that is the historic understanding of marriage?
No one cares about your "historic understanding" of marriage.  We
aren't bound by it, nor should we be.
Please explain.
You are sealioning again.
Another question which you cannot answer.
Give him time.

He's "evolving" an answer.

<snicker>
Bill Flett
2021-06-14 02:44:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 20:18:24 -0500, David Hartung
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political
movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution
about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S.
Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a
religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief
rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other
physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces
beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can.
Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or
vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party
attempted to deny LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
I see, and that is the historic understanding of marriage?
No one cares about your "historic understanding" of marriage.  We
aren't bound by it, nor should we be.
Please explain.
You are sealioning again.
Another question which you cannot answer.
Give him time.
The question has been answered.
Kurt Nicklas
2021-06-14 04:23:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 20:18:24 -0500, David Hartung
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political
movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution
about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S.
Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a
religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief
rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other
physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces
beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can.
Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or
vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party
attempted to deny LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
I see, and that is the historic understanding of marriage?
No one cares about your "historic understanding" of marriage.  We
aren't bound by it, nor should we be.
Please explain.
You are sealioning again.
Another question which you cannot answer.
Give him time.
The question has been answered.
Whenever Rudy uses the words "...settled beyond dispute..." or "...you
know this..." or "...question has been answered... it's short
hand for the following....

"You have kicked my ass. An impression from your Boot of Knowledge is
something my buttocks will carry for months. I want to leave this
conversation now, as it is useless for me to try to convince you with
my weak, factless arguments.

"As a last, desperate measure, I will warm up my sock puppets and tell
you that (a) I know more than you, (b) the subject we're 'discussing'
has been decided at some mysterious, previous point in time, and I
was right then, and (c) I will next forge the quoted post and tell you
that you agree with me.

"At this point, I will release my sock puppets into the wild, where
they will agree that I am the smartest person who ever drew the Breath
of Life. They will sing my praises. They will also agree with whatever
I've said, without a single fact or cite.

"If you persist in presenting undeniable facts that prove me wrong, I
will alter the posts even more and pretend you are a small child so I
can feel superior to you. There is another reason I like to pretend
you are small child, but I don't want to get into that now. Suffice to
say, I can type with one hand almost as fast as I can with two."

(credit to Klaus)
Bill Flett
2021-06-14 04:28:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kurt Nicklas
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Kurt Nicklas
On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 20:18:24 -0500, David Hartung
As I said above, for a government to fly the LGBT flag over
government
installations, is to signify support for a political
movement.
It's a human rights movement, not a political movement.
The Constitution only mandates separation of church and state.
Really? Where exactly does it do that, Dummy?
Geez you're a dummy. You've never read the constitution
have you?
<LOL> Like I said, you can't find anything in the Constitution
about
the separation of church and state, because it's not there.
You f'ing ignorant Trumpster it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The first ten amendments to the constitution make
up the Bill of Rights, so yes it's in the
constitution just like all amendments are
part of the constitution.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
By Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
NOT *separation* , the word separation is never used.
Neither is the word 'Internet', so the Supreme Court can't
rule on that either, right?
The Supreme Court...interprets the constitution and we are
all bound by it's decisions.
Establishment is the word being used in the actual U.S.
Constitution.
So the United States Congress can't make laws that establish a
religion
as the NATIONAL RELIGION OF THE UNITED STATES.
That also means creating new religions that are based on belief
rather
than SCIENTIFIC FACTS and TRUTHS.
Like Qanon?
There is no proof that gays and TRANS do NOT have male/female
heterosexual DNA. There is no proof they have some other
physical reason
to be gay or TRANS either by internal or by external forces
beyond their
control.
Huh? What?
Can they decide to be gay or trans by choice, sure they can.
Does that
choice have RIGHTS like the choice between eating chocolate or
vanilla
ice cream?
A person's sexuality goes to the core of what it means
to be a person....
"The American Founders, however, argued that people have
rights regardless of whether they are able to put them
into practice.
This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part
of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and
violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances
could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were
legitimate to the extent that they protected rights.
ZThose that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral
authority."
"All men are equal in the sense that, since we are
all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural,
and unalienable rights. Those rights include “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.” This essential equality
means that no one is born with a natural right to
rule over others without their consent, and that
governments are obligated to apply the law equally
to everyone."
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/equal-and-inalienable-rights
The LBGT community DOES NOT CONSENT to have the republican
party strip them of their natural rights.
Just to be clear, exactly what rights has the Republican party
attempted to deny LGBT people?
The right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, for starters.
I see, and that is the historic understanding of marriage?
No one cares about your "historic understanding" of marriage.  We
aren't bound by it, nor should we be.
Please explain.
You are sealioning again.
Another question which you cannot answer.
Give him time.
The question has been answered.
Whenever Rudy uses the words "...settled beyond dispute..." or "...you
know this..." or "...question has been answered...
You know it is. Yes.
Loading...