Consenting Adults

[AGENT J]

1.) No sorry its not the same thing. Refusing to serve blacks was from an intention of hate and feelings of superiority.
2.) Nobody has ever made that argument to justify refusal of service to gays.
3.) Black people do not violate someone's religion.
4.) Gay people do (in fact they violate almost every religion).
5.) Whether you like it or not we have religious freedom in thile free world so therefore the religious obligation Christian have to not support homosexuality should be legally protected.
6.) You would not appreciate the government forcing you to abandon your beliefs, such as mandating that atheists have to attend Sunday Mass or pray.
7.) It is the same for Christians. They should not be forced to violate their beliefs.

1.) yes it is the same thing its illegal discrimination
2.) actually they have BUT that doesnt matter its illegal discrimination
3.) actually people did say based on religions blacks are lessers but that ws just thier feelings and they dont matter to RIGHTS
4.) again just your feeligns and your feelings dont matter to rights
5.) im a christian so i love my religious rights and gays do not impact them in any way what so ever. Again im sorry your country sucks my religious rights are protected in amercia and no one of them is infringed on by gays. Not one, if you disagree factually list that right that is infringed on, you cant.
6.) I agree i would would not appreciate the government forcing me to abandon my beliefs luckily in america they dont
7.) also correct and in america as a christian im not, i thank god for that everyday

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Marriage is between one man and one woman.
2.) If we called it something else I'd be fine. Corporate marriage as in Robert Rimmer would be fine with me......any configuration.
3.) The issue should have been decided by an elected legislature not a judge. Maine had gay marriage. It was a justification for nationwide gay marriage. Maine has constitutional carry. The exact same rational could be used for a national constitutional carry. 4.) Constitutional carry should be thr law of the land like gay marriage.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

1.) nope its factually not
2.) you being fine dont matter to fats rights and laws
3.) this is actually factually not true, your leap from main to national . . . . but in regards to national carry i support that but thats another topic
4.) i agree hopefully it goes through the courts and something changes . .

 

[Babykat]

1.) right now in america though you can refuse service for any reason you want, you just cant break the law or violate the rights of others so your example is the exact opposite of reality and not analogous.
2.) all of us already do, again see #1
3.) yes they should it only depends on the discrimination. if my org doesnt want to buy your bolts cause they break easier than somebody else bolts thats fine
4.) but its not
5.) I dont know but in america we arent even close to that line most of us are protected equally and we are getting BETTER at it not worse.
6.) nobody can "force" themselves in to a bathroom but if the bathroom is public and you are in fact transgender yes you should have every right to use that PUBLIC restroom anybody that doesnt like it is free to not use it. Currently this isnt a law/protection yet but it should be and eventually it will be
7.) its equality because if it was an actual law it would protect EVERYBODY since we all have a gender identity or lack of one. If you disagree tell me the person not protected by that trait .. you cant . . you can only point to people that have "feelings" that others shouldn't be protected

Its basic common sense, anybody who can convince themselves that this is not equality then has to be against EVERY SINGLE OTHER RIGHT that involves this stuff cause its the same based on their logic . . race protects everybody cause we all have one, gender protects everybody race we all have one, religion protects everybody cause we all have one or a lack of one. Nobody gets special treatment.

pretty easy :shrug:

On October 4, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions released a Department of Justice memo stating that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sex, which he stated "is ordinarily defined to mean biologically male or female," but the law "does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se.”

On May 11, 2018, the US Bureau of Prisons announced that prison guidelines issued by the Obama Administration in January 2017 to allow transgender prisoners to be transferred to prisons housing inmates of the gender which they identify with had been rescinded and that biological gender would once again determine where transgender prisoners are jailed.

Now what was you saying. We are all equal here in the great United States of America. Sure seems like it. ~~~I know I don’t feel discriminated or oppressed being a transgender. ~~~


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AGENT J]

On October 4, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions released a Department of Justice memo stating that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sex, which he stated "is ordinarily defined to mean biologically male or female," but the law "does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se.”

On May 11, 2018, the US Bureau of Prisons announced that prison guidelines issued by the Obama Administration in January 2017 to allow transgender prisoners to be transferred to prisons housing inmates of the gender which they identify with had been rescinded and that biological gender would once again determine where transgender prisoners are jailed.

Now what was you saying. We are all equal here in the great United States of America. Sure seems like it. ~~~I know I don’t feel discriminated or oppressed being a transgender. ~~~


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LMAO what on earth did you just post that you feel goes AGAINST anything i said . .???LMAO

opcorn2:

 

[Eriech]

1.) nope its factually not
2.) you being fine dont matter to fats rights and laws
3.) this is actually factually not true, your leap from main to national . . . . but in regards to national carry i support that but thats another topic
4.) i agree hopefully it goes through the courts and something changes . .

Defence of marriage act was law of land passed by a duly elected legislature and signed by the president (Clinton if I remember correctly) until appointees ruled it unconstitutional based in part that Maine, Vermont, Calfornia, Hawaii and a few others made gay marriage legal. I could be wrong but I recall the commerce clause as one justification being used so marriages approved in one state accepted everywhere. This was my reasoning for constitutional carry nationwide. The 2cnd amendment is noteably more defined than marriage.

Marriage needed no definition in the 1700s. My mother in law is married to her partner of 30 or so years. I love them both but do not love that what they have is called marriage. It is not. It is something else. What they have needs a different term. Under law this term should have all the rights and privilage of marriage. Language matters. We screwed it up......I know that we lost that battle. Still wrong.

Would love to have the issue used to justify nationwide constitutional carry. Sweet irony. Shadenfreud.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Babykat]

LMAO what on earth did you just post that you feel goes AGAINST anything i said . .???LMAO

opcorn2:

Really the only thing you said that didn’t go along with what I had posted was line 7 the rest of your line items just stated that what I was saying was already law. Which I had never stated other wise. But your line item 7 say that we are protected under law because gender is protected. But if you look at the first quote in my previous post you will see that gender does not cover gender identity. Which means I can’t be discriminated against for being male. But I can be discriminated against for identifying as female. In turn transgender isn’t protected under law. Meaning I don’t have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else if they know I’m transgender. Now take the second quote in my previous post. Wouldn’t putting someone who identifies as female and may even resemble a female including having the genital of a female in a male prison be cruel and unusual punishment. Which would go against the 8th amendment in the bill of rights. So no gender does not cover or protect gender identity or transgenders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Babykat]

Defence of marriage act was law of land passed by a duly elected legislature and signed by the president (Clinton if I remember correctly) until appointees ruled it unconstitutional based in part that Maine, Vermont, Calfornia, Hawaii and a few others made gay marriage legal. I could be wrong but I recall the commerce clause as one justification being used so marriages approved in one state accepted everywhere. This was my reasoning for constitutional carry nationwide. The 2cnd amendment is noteably more defined than marriage.

Marriage needed no definition in the 1700s. My mother in law is married to her partner of 30 or so years. I love them both but do not love that what they have is called marriage. It is not. It is something else. What they have needs a different term. Under law this term should have all the rights and privilage of marriage. Language matters. We screwed it up......I know that we lost that battle. Still wrong.

Would love to have the issue used to justify nationwide constitutional carry. Sweet irony. Shadenfreud.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

I’m with you on the constitutional carry it would be nice if I could carry based on my states laws when I travel. I spend about 47 weeks a year in other states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Defence of marriage act was law of land passed by a duly elected legislature and signed by the president (Clinton if I remember correctly) until appointees ruled it unconstitutional based in part that Maine, Vermont, Calfornia, Hawaii and a few others made gay marriage legal. I could be wrong but I recall the commerce clause as one justification being used so marriages approved in one state accepted everywhere. This was my reasoning for constitutional carry nationwide. The 2cnd amendment is noteably more defined than marriage.

2.) Marriage needed no definition in the 1700s.
3.) My mother in law is married to her partner of 30 or so years.
4.) I love them both but do not love that what they have is called marriage.
5.) It is not. It is something else. What they have needs a different term.
6.) Under law this term should have all the rights and privilage of marriage.
7.) Language matters. We screwed it up.....
8.).I know that we lost that battle. Still wrong.
9.) Would love to have the issue used to justify nationwide constitutional carry. Sweet irony. Shadenfreud.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

1.) what did you just post that you think changes the fact that marriage is not man and woman?
2.) and? blacks 3/5ths a person was "a" definition once
3.) awesome for her . . meaningless to the discussion
4.) again what you love is meanginless
5.) facts disagree if they are legally married then its factually a marriage
6.) sounds like separate but equal to me, that doesnt work . . .yes black person you can drink out of the water fountain just not THIS water fountain, you have to drink from that one . . thats NOT how rights work.
7.) actually they nailed it and got it right
8.) who is we? america and everybody that agrees with rights and freedoms won
9.) again that wouldn't be irony it just further exposes your monumental lack of understanding of the law and rights and this issue.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Really the only thing you said that didn’t go along with what I had posted was line 7 the rest of your line items just stated that what I was saying was already law. Which I had never stated other wise.
2.) But your line item 7 say that we are protected under law because gender is protected. But if you look at the first quote in my previous post you will see that gender does not cover gender identity. Which means I can’t be discriminated against for being male. But I can be discriminated against for identifying as female. In turn transgender isn’t protected under law.
3.) Meaning I don’t have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else if they know I’m transgender. Now take the second quote in my previous post. Wouldn’t putting someone who identifies as female and may even resemble a female including having the genital of a female in a male prison be cruel and unusual punishment. Which would go against the 8th amendment in the bill of rights. So no gender does not cover or protect gender identity or transgenders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1.) yes really because nothing you posted changes waht i said and supports it . . again no matter what you think and falsely claim LMAO
2.) who said gender identity is protected nation wide?
3.) when did i say you do? in fact i said the opposite

like i said YOUR mistake, thanks for further proving it

 

[Babykat]

1.) yes really because nothing you posted changes waht i said and supports it . . again no matter what you think and falsely claim LMAO
2.) who said gender identity is protected nation wide?
3.) when did i say you do? in fact i said the opposite

like i said YOUR mistake, thanks for further proving it

I see your the type of person who argues with a person who says grass is green or that wood comes from trees. You are not here to debate. But instead your here to troll. I’m not going to waste my time debating with a person who is closed minded and want even try to see a point from someone else’s prospective. I would also encourage everyone else in this thread not to engage you anymore. Goodbye don’t bother quoting me anymore I’m not going to respond.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AGENT J]

1.) I see your the type of person who argues with a person who says grass is green or that wood comes from trees.
2.) You are not here to debate. But instead your here to troll.
3.) I’m not going to waste my time debating with a person who is closed minded and want even try to see a point from someone else’s prospective. I would also encourage everyone else in this thread not to engage you anymore.
4.) Goodbye don’t bother quoting me anymore I’m not going to respond.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1.) theres no argument here. You just stated facts. your failed post in question doesnt have facts i disagree with i just pointed out it was wrong. Try again lol
2.) wrong again, ill gladly debate anything i want to that is actually up for debate. your mistake is not its just a factual mistake. Now its you job to post with honesty and integrity and admit it or deny it and ill continue to point that out.
3.) good move wussing out and running away because youll never beat facts. You didnt provide a different prospective you were factually wrong in your claims. Very telling you didnt answer my questions and quote me saying the retarded lies you made up . . i wonder why???
4.) LAMO you responding or not is meaningless ill continue to expose any false claims your mistakes you mean no matter how much it bothers you. Dont like, dont make false claims and you can fix your problems easy :2wave:

 

[Eriech]

Just telling you my thoughts on issue. Traditional marriage lost in the court. I know that. I accept that. I do not like it and feel it is bad for society.
3/5 was a compromise for apportioning representation that ultimately benefited slaves. Had the south been able to count slaves as 1 in the census there would have been many more representatives in slave states. Not germain to this issue but interesting aside.......




Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Just telling you my thoughts on issue.
2.) Traditional marriage lost in the court. I know that. I accept that.
3.) I do not like it and feel it is bad for society.
4.) 3/5 was a compromise for apportioning representation that ultimately benefited slaves. Had the south been able to count slaves as 1 in the census there would have been many more representatives in slave states. Not germain to this issue but interesting aside.......




Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

1.) and i understand but your thoughts dont mean anything to rights and some of them are factually wrong
2.) no, your FEELINGS about traditional marriage lost
3.) well if equal rights bother you there are other places that dont have them . . maybe you can go there
4.) actually it is germane because you brought up the meaningless claim about definitions or lack of definitions, based on your false claim i gave you an example that showed you they are meaningless to rights.

 

[Babykat]

Just telling you my thoughts on issue. Traditional marriage lost in the court. I know that. I accept that. I do not like it and feel it is bad for society.
3/5 was a compromise for apportioning representation that ultimately benefited slaves. Had the south been able to count slaves as 1 in the census there would have been many more representatives in slave states. Not germain to this issue but interesting aside.......




Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

I would really suggest you stop engaging Agent J he isn’t here to debate. You can’t debate facts you can only debate intent, opinions, and prospectives. He is just trolling and trying to make himself feel smart. It’s not like we don’t know the laws or facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eriech]

I would really suggest you stop engaging Agent J he isn’t here to debate. You can’t debate facts you can only debate intent, opinions, and prospectives. He is just trolling and trying to make himself feel smart. It’s not like we don’t know the laws or facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It does feel like I am debating Lursa on the abortion page.......


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Babykat]

It does feel like I am debating Lursa on the abortion page.......


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Yes I debated Lursa to. Some people just don’t understand you can’t debate facts. The laws exist we know they exist there is nothing to debate there. You can only debate whether they are just or what there intent is. But coming into a debate quoting facts and laws isn’t debating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AGENT J]

I would really suggest you stop engaging Agent J he isn’t here to debate. You can’t debate facts you can only debate intent, opinions, and prospectives. He is just trolling and trying to make himself feel smart. It’s not like we don’t know the laws or facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please back up any of the lies you just posted (about me or my posts) with facts that make them true. Ill wait, thanks!!!!

 

[Eriech]

1.) and i understand but your thoughts dont mean anything to rights and some of them are factually wrong
2.) no, your FEELINGS about traditional marriage lost
3.) well if equal rights bother you there are other places that dont have them . . maybe you can go there
4.) actually it is germane because you brought up the meaningless claim about definitions or lack of definitions, based on your false claim i gave you an example that showed you they are meaningless to rights.

To answer the original post. I do not care about what others do. I do care that the meaning of marriage was muddied by the court.
All they (gay lobby) needed to do to win me is come up with another term, not that acceptance matters.





Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Babykat]

To answer the original post. I do not care about what others do. I do care that the meaning of marriage was muddied by the court.
All they (gay lobby) needed to do to win me is come up with another term, not that acceptance matters.





Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

I do understand your point. Me being a Christian myself. But then you would need to change the legal name for all marriages so that they would be equal under law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eriech]

I do understand your point. Me being a Christian myself. But then you would need to change the legal name for all marriages so that they would be equal under law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Marriage "or" whatever (name to be determined) under the law to be equal works or rather would have worked.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[AGENT J]

1.) To answer the original post. I do not care about what others do. I do care that the meaning of marriage was muddied by the court.
2.) All they (gay lobby) needed to do to win me is come up with another term, not that acceptance matters.





Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

1.) and im telling you it factually wasnt, thats only your feeligns which there is no support for.
2.) you mean the equal rights lobby? nobody cares about "winning with you" and its the proper term already, you had no ownership over the legal contract called marriage. Its none of your business. :shrug:

 

[Babykat]

Marriage "or" whatever (name to be determined) under the law to be equal works or rather would have worked.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

I’m not homosexual myself and when the same sex marriage movement started I agreed with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AGENT J]

Marriage "or" whatever (name to be determined) under the law to be equal works or rather would have worked.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Should we have told the first black president he cant be called president based on somebody's feelings? You know because theres people that think "that is wrong"
he can be called CEO if america but not president because some people may not like it? right?
what about when we have our first woman or known gay president? should we violate their rights and make up names for them too based on people's feelings?

 

[RAMOSS]

Just telling you my thoughts on issue. Traditional marriage lost in the court. I know that. I accept that. I do not like it and feel it is bad for society.
3/5 was a compromise for apportioning representation that ultimately benefited slaves. Had the south been able to count slaves as 1 in the census there would have been many more representatives in slave states. Not germain to this issue but interesting aside.......




Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

So what?? A good old traditional marriage is between a man, a woman, and his concubine.

 

[Babykat]

So what?? A good old traditional marriage is between a man, a woman, and his concubine.

And they had same sex marriages in Ancient Rome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk