In article ,
Muggles wrote:

So, you approve of the American society becoming one that allows people
to marry dogs?

From what I have seen some places, it is hard to argue that it doesn't
already.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On 7/31/2015 8:22 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Muggles wrote:

So, you approve of the American society becoming one that allows people
to marry dogs?

From what I have seen some places, it is hard to argue that it doesn't
already.

I'm pretty sure there are people in the US that have done that.
However, since marriage is a legally binding contract, and dogs can't
sign contracts, then it's not exactly kosher.

In article ,
SeaNymph wrote:

On 7/31/2015 8:22 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Muggles wrote:

So, you approve of the American society becoming one that allows people
to marry dogs?

From what I have seen some places, it is hard to argue that it doesn't
already.

I'm pretty sure there are people in the US that have done that.
However, since marriage is a legally binding contract, and dogs can't
sign contracts, then it's not exactly kosher.

I was trying (and obviously failing miserably) to be a smart ass. The
dogs I was talking about were the human kind.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:43:08 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

I'm so confused. Time to go back to kicking puppies.

Black dog lives matter

Oren wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:43:08 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

I'm so confused. Time to go back to kicking puppies.

Black dog lives matter

I love Black labs.

On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:47:06 PM UTC-5, Tony Hwang wrote:
Oren wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:43:08 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

I'm so confused. Time to go back to kicking puppies.

Black dog lives matter

I love Black labs.

I wore white lab coats. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Lab Monster

On 7/31/2015 7:43 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/30/2015 11:29 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/30/2015 3:23 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

I don't want to marry a dog, I find the idea stupid and if sex were
involved icky but if someone else wants to why is it my business
(again, assuming consent by the dog).


So, you approve of the American society becoming one that allows people
to marry dogs?


I wonder some times about that Ashton person,
but that's because I'm a bigot. My hatred knows
no bounds, I love to say. Or, so Ashton proved
by failing to quote any thing I wrote which was
or is bigoted. Or hatred. I'm so confused. Time
to go back to kicking puppies.


I hear kicking frogs is more pc these days.

--
Maggie

On 7/31/2015 8:22 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Muggles wrote:

So, you approve of the American society becoming one that allows people
to marry dogs?

From what I have seen some places, it is hard to argue that it doesn't
already.


I hear some people can blame the consumption of alcohol for that!

--
Maggie

On 07/31/2015 11:30 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/31/2015 8:22 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Muggles wrote:

So, you approve of the American society becoming one that allows people
to marry dogs?

From what I have seen some places, it is hard to argue that it doesn't
already.


I hear some people can blame the consumption of alcohol for that!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbVYn1dokgQ

On 8/1/2015 1:18 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/31/2015 7:43 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
So, you approve of the American society becoming one that allows people
to marry dogs?


I wonder some times about that Ashton person,
but that's because I'm a bigot. My hatred knows
no bounds, I love to say. Or, so Ashton proved
by failing to quote any thing I wrote which was
or is bigoted. Or hatred. I'm so confused. Time
to go back to kicking puppies.


I hear kicking frogs is more pc these days.


When I'm really feeling bigoted, I shoot lions
with a real gun. Well, at least in my dream world.

But, that's only because I hate everyone. You know,
I could read usenet instead of going to a psych
doctor, if I ever needed analysis. Now, what was
that question about marrying my mother, Dr. Fraud?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/31/2015 10:46 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Oren wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:43:08 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

I'm so confused. Time to go back to kicking puppies.

Black dog lives matter

I love Black labs.

Most black labs I've met, have been more polite
than some people I've met.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/31/2015 11:49 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:47:06 PM UTC-5, Tony Hwang wrote:
Oren wrote:
Black dog lives matter

I love Black labs.

I wore white lab coats. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Lab Monster


Yeah, but do white labs matter?

If astronomers study dark material and dark
space, does that make them racist?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 00:19:27 -0600, rbowman
wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbVYn1dokgQ

BTDT and wore out the T-shirt.

On 8/1/2015 1:19 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 07/31/2015 11:30 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/31/2015 8:22 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Muggles wrote:

So, you approve of the American society becoming one that allows people
to marry dogs?

From what I have seen some places, it is hard to argue that it doesn't
already.


I hear some people can blame the consumption of alcohol for that!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbVYn1dokgQ



HA! Love it. haha

--
Maggie

On 8/1/2015 6:34 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/1/2015 1:18 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/31/2015 7:43 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
So, you approve of the American society becoming one that allows people
to marry dogs?


I wonder some times about that Ashton person,
but that's because I'm a bigot. My hatred knows
no bounds, I love to say. Or, so Ashton proved
by failing to quote any thing I wrote which was
or is bigoted. Or hatred. I'm so confused. Time
to go back to kicking puppies.


I hear kicking frogs is more pc these days.


When I'm really feeling bigoted, I shoot lions
with a real gun. Well, at least in my dream world.

But, that's only because I hate everyone. You know,
I could read usenet instead of going to a psych
doctor, if I ever needed analysis. Now, what was
that question about marrying my mother, Dr. Fraud?


Did you hear that I'm the village idiot now? Guess I have to start
limping and drooling, now. huh?

--
Maggie

On 08/01/2015 10:22 AM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 00:19:27 -0600, rbowman
wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbVYn1dokgQ

BTDT and wore out the T-shirt.


Yeah, when I put the plug in the jug it didn't do much for my sex life
but at least there weren't nasty surprises.

On 8/1/2015 2:35 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/1/2015 6:34 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/1/2015 1:18 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/31/2015 7:43 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
So, you approve of the American society becoming one that allows people
to marry dogs?


I wonder some times about that Ashton person,
but that's because I'm a bigot. My hatred knows
no bounds, I love to say. Or, so Ashton proved
by failing to quote any thing I wrote which was
or is bigoted. Or hatred. I'm so confused. Time
to go back to kicking puppies.


I hear kicking frogs is more pc these days.


When I'm really feeling bigoted, I shoot lions
with a real gun. Well, at least in my dream world.

But, that's only because I hate everyone. You know,
I could read usenet instead of going to a psych
doctor, if I ever needed analysis. Now, what was
that question about marrying my mother, Dr. Fraud?


Did you hear that I'm the village idiot now? Guess I have to start
limping and drooling, now. huh?

You were always the village idiot Jenn, you just changed your name and
the village.

--
Froz...

Quando omni flunkus, moritati

On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 15:33:00 -0400, FrozenNorth
wrote:

On 8/1/2015 2:35 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/1/2015 6:34 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/1/2015 1:18 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/31/2015 7:43 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
So, you approve of the American society becoming one that allows people
to marry dogs?


I wonder some times about that Ashton person,
but that's because I'm a bigot. My hatred knows
no bounds, I love to say. Or, so Ashton proved
by failing to quote any thing I wrote which was
or is bigoted. Or hatred. I'm so confused. Time
to go back to kicking puppies.


I hear kicking frogs is more pc these days.


When I'm really feeling bigoted, I shoot lions
with a real gun. Well, at least in my dream world.

But, that's only because I hate everyone. You know,
I could read usenet instead of going to a psych
doctor, if I ever needed analysis. Now, what was
that question about marrying my mother, Dr. Fraud?


Did you hear that I'm the village idiot now? Guess I have to start
limping and drooling, now. huh?

You were always the village idiot Jenn, you just changed your name and
the village.

This is going to get interesting. A liberal from Santa Barbara kept
being an ass here, finally exposed herself so I slammed her. The real
Sara has gone dark in this village

On 8/1/2015 4:42 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 15:33:00 -0400, FrozenNorth
wrote:

On 8/1/2015 2:35 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/1/2015 6:34 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/1/2015 1:18 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/31/2015 7:43 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
So, you approve of the American society becoming one that allows people
to marry dogs?


I wonder some times about that Ashton person,
but that's because I'm a bigot. My hatred knows
no bounds, I love to say. Or, so Ashton proved
by failing to quote any thing I wrote which was
or is bigoted. Or hatred. I'm so confused. Time
to go back to kicking puppies.


I hear kicking frogs is more pc these days.


When I'm really feeling bigoted, I shoot lions
with a real gun. Well, at least in my dream world.

But, that's only because I hate everyone. You know,
I could read usenet instead of going to a psych
doctor, if I ever needed analysis. Now, what was
that question about marrying my mother, Dr. Fraud?


Did you hear that I'm the village idiot now? Guess I have to start
limping and drooling, now. huh?

You were always the village idiot Jenn, you just changed your name and
the village.

This is going to get interesting. A liberal from Santa Barbara kept
being an ass here, finally exposed herself so I slammed her. The real
Sara has gone dark in this village

This one is a registered republican from Tulsa, she was fully outed in
another group, with pictures and diagrams, and got scared off. There
are a lot of people watching her here from a couple groups. No reason
to out her again, yet.

--
Froz...

Quando omni flunkus, moritati

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 4:06:55 PM UTC-5, FrozenNorth wrote:

This one is a registered republican from Tulsa, she was fully outed in
another group, with pictures and diagrams, and got scared off. There
are a lot of people watching her here from a couple groups. No reason
to out her again, yet.

...isn't that bullying? In what way is she bothering anyone?

On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:06:50 -0400, FrozenNorth
wrote:

This is going to get interesting. A liberal from Santa Barbara kept
being an ass here, finally exposed herself so I slammed her. The real
Sara has gone dark in this village

This one is a registered republican from Tulsa, she was fully outed in
another group, with pictures and diagrams, and got scared off. There
are a lot of people watching her here from a couple groups. No reason
to out her again, yet.

The Sara I speak of was a real idiot. I finally posted her property
details. She climbed into a hole and has not surfaced back here. I
don't mind debate on facts but to tell bold-faced lies, disrespect a
veteran war hero is the last straw.

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:29:11 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/30/2015 3:23 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:06:25 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/29/2015 2:06 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:50:00 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/29/2015 7:39 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Muggles wrote:

On 7/28/2015 5:31 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Muggles wrote:

Why are you limiting the combination of people to only two people?
You're discriminating against a third or fourth person who may want to
marry within that group?

Why are you limiting the combination to people?

After people (and actually adults) you, at least so far, get into the
field of having to give consent. Since non-people, and kids, can't
legally give consent, then they can't marry. (I wouldn't put it past
some judge to try and give animals the right to consent, but they'd
tossed off the bench (assuming they lived long enough) if they tried to
okay marriage under the age of sexual consent.


Twenty years ago many people would've never thought gay marriage would
be legalized, either.

But that was a purer issue since you didn't get into consent issues. I
think it is only a matter of time, for instance, until someone decides
to apply this to polygamy. It seems to fit most of the underpinnings of
the same sex rulings.

I agree that it's just a matter of time, but it won't just be people
wanting to apply it to polygamy. People will use the same argument(s)
gays used to change the definition of marriage to include same sexes and
try to apply that to other combinations.

On the other hand, for most other forms, you have to be able to give
consent for marriage and the law on that is much broader.


The broader the law the easier it'll be to change in favor of the wants
of special interest groups, don't you think?

Assuming we can put aside the question of how your dog can give
consent and truly say "I do", what would be your objection to someone
marrying their dog? So again, you have to put aside the consent
issue, what bothers you about the notion that if a human and a dog
love each other and want to marry they should not be allowed to? Are
you afraid of the tax breaks they might get? Are you afraid of how it
affects inheritance rights? Is it just because you find the idea of
them having sex "icky"? Is it because you have a book of rules you
personally follow that says you shouldn't do it so you want to force
everyone else to follow those rules even if they don't believe them?


Book of rules? You sound like an anarchist. Anything goes?

Not necessarily. But how is someone marrying their dog any of your
business (again, we have to assume a dog is able to understand what's
going on and gives consent)? This would not be the same question as
"what business of yours/harm is there in someone kidnapping my sister
and selling her as a slave" since that would not involve consent on
her part presumably.

I don't want to marry a dog, I find the idea stupid and if sex were
involved icky but if someone else wants to why is it my business
(again, assuming consent by the dog).


So, you approve of the American society becoming one that allows people
to marry dogs?

In the abstract sense, sure. The only objection I would have is that
I don't think marrying a dog should get you the same tax breaks you
get for marrying a person. But my solution to that would be to get
rid of all the tax differences that are a result of whether someone is
married or not rather than single out dogs as not eligible for the tax
breaks.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:43:08 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/30/2015 11:29 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/30/2015 3:23 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

I don't want to marry a dog, I find the idea stupid and if sex were
involved icky but if someone else wants to why is it my business
(again, assuming consent by the dog).


So, you approve of the American society becoming one that allows people
to marry dogs?


I wonder some times about that Ashton person,
but that's because I'm a bigot. My hatred knows
no bounds, I love to say. Or, so Ashton proved
by failing to quote any thing I wrote which was
or is bigoted. Or hatred. I'm so confused. Time
to go back to kicking puppies.

So you think businesses should be able to refuse to render their
services, shall we say their cake baking services, to potential
customers simply because the customer is gay? What about if the
customer is black? What if the customer is a woman? What if the
customer is a lawyer? What if the customer is a politician?

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:46:57 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:43:08 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

I'm so confused. Time to go back to kicking puppies.

Black dog lives matter

I love Black labs.

I love secret labs.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:49:44 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
SeaNymph wrote:

On 7/31/2015 8:22 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Muggles wrote:

So, you approve of the American society becoming one that allows people
to marry dogs?

From what I have seen some places, it is hard to argue that it doesn't
already.

I'm pretty sure there are people in the US that have done that.
However, since marriage is a legally binding contract, and dogs can't
sign contracts, then it's not exactly kosher.

I was trying (and obviously failing miserably) to be a smart ass. The
dogs I was talking about were the human kind.

One or two bagger?

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:32:30 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:50:14 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:


Because two is all that is provided for by law. And to remind you,
until the religious wackos started rewriting the law the law didn't
care whether it was a man or woman or a man and man or a woman and
woman.
The laws have long stated a man and a woman (which was reiterated
numerous times in the DOMA decision). As it notes: ""regulation of
domestic relations" is "an area that has long been regarded as a
virtually exclusive province of the States," Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S.
393, 404. The significance of state responsibilities for the definition
and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation's beginning; for ***"when
the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the
domestic relations of husband and wife ***and parent and child were
matters reserved to the States," Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.
S. 379, 383-384. Popovici, by the way was a 1930s case hardly a time of
religious wackos.


It was only when the religious wackos realized the law didn't
care that they had to force thru the DOMA to close that "loophole".
But as the SC ruled, that loophole wasn't a loophole, it was a civil
right.

Where did it say that. I did a search on the SCOTUS decision and civil
right only showed up once and in an entirely different context within
Alito's DISSENT.

The WHAT versus WHO issue has been explained to you folks
before. The WHAT is that marriage is two humans tying the knot. The
WHO is the two humans. That law is about the WHAT, not the WHO. If
the law changes so that WHAT is three humans, or a human and a
non-human then we can explore the WHO that might be involved and
whether limiting whom WHO is violates anyone's rights under the
constitution.

Did not address same sex marriages directly. Rather it was abut DOMA
pre-empting the laws of states (in this case NYS) that HAD specifically
okayed same sex marriages. The entirety of the opinion was solely that
DOMA and "Its unusual deviation from the tradition of recognizing and
accepting state definitions of marriage operates to deprive same-sex
couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with federal
recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having
the purpose and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and
protected by state law." The constitutionality was solely that it
usurped the rights of the state.

Husband and wife is not defined by sex in the law. And what might be
"commonly understood" does not mean it's legal. The fact remains, if
this was clear cut as you are trying to claim there would not have
been any need at all for DOMA nor for so many states to start passing
their own little DOMAs and trying to amend their constitutions in
there attempts to prevent gay marriage. The very ACTS the states took
puts the lie to your claim that existing law said marriages were ONLY
opposite sex. You can't escape that truth.


Crickets...

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 15:36:34 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:49:44 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
SeaNymph wrote:

On 7/31/2015 8:22 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Muggles wrote:

So, you approve of the American society becoming one that allows people
to marry dogs?

From what I have seen some places, it is hard to argue that it doesn't
already.

I'm pretty sure there are people in the US that have done that.
However, since marriage is a legally binding contract, and dogs can't
sign contracts, then it's not exactly kosher.

I was trying (and obviously failing miserably) to be a smart ass. The
dogs I was talking about were the human kind.

One or two bagger?

A three bagger. One just in case the neighbor comes over.

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:44:09 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/30/2015 3:50 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:08:37 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/29/2015 2:10 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 22:42:41 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/25/2015 10:09 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 17:34:46 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/25/2015 5:17 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 23:34:47 -0500, Muggles wrote:

One argument in favor of being gay is people are born gay. I've always
countered that argument with a logical response. Do you think people are
born gay?

1) I'm inclined to think they are...
but
2) even if it is/was a choice, what possible concern is it of anyone
else that someone choose to be gay rather than straight?

Well, many people have used the argument that people are "born" gay in
order to force a mindset on others who disagree with the lifestyle.


I would quibble with your wording. Yes, people say that one is "born
gay" because that does push the discuss in a different direction. But
it's not an unreasonable starting point since the evidence is
overwhelming that a person IS born either gay or straight.

How can you tell if a baby is gay or straight?



Why would I need to be able to tell?

Many people have said, or agree with the notion that gays are "born"
gay. If people are "born" gay then there should be an indicator in
babies that prove that notion to be true.

So, if people are born gay, how can you tell if a baby is gay or straight?

Simple logic.


Simple logic doesn't mean it's simple to find the "marker".

So, you have to look for some sort of "marker"? If a baby is born gay
shouldn't it be obvious to tell, or is being gay a learned behavior?

Why would it be simple? I'll ask you again, how do you tell if that
newborn baby is left or right handed? How do you tell if that newborn
baby is going to have a great singing voice? How do you tell if that
newborn baby will be an Olympic champion in the sprint? The list could
go on and on of things you CAN'T tell about a newborn that are clearly
things they are BORN WITH/AS.

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 13:32:08 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:50:39 -0500, Muggles wrote:

I'm starting to wonder. Ashton appears to be
completely convinced that he has a complete
and correct understanding of Jesus. And that
he has a complete understanding of what
others believe. That's pretty bold.


I think he's just trolling.

In fairness to Ashton, he is not a troll. Been around for a long
time. He is dug in and stands by his opinion. Now, tossing the word
"bigot" around is just plain silly.

A bigot doesn't like anybody. If they are gay, queer, carpet muncher's
or what. A bigot doesn't like them.

Any public business has a right to refuse service. No shoes, No shirt,
Three heads, No Service. Period.

I support the bakers right to refuse service. Just like I do not have
to frequent a gun free victim killing zone business. There is an App
for that.

Spit.

You are in the ball park. Perhaps you can answer this, it seems no
one has been able to so far. Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 15:57:29 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/19/2015 3:32 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:50:39 -0500, Muggles wrote:

I'm starting to wonder. Ashton appears to be
completely convinced that he has a complete
and correct understanding of Jesus. And that
he has a complete understanding of what
others believe. That's pretty bold.


I think he's just trolling.

In fairness to Ashton, he is not a troll. Been around for a long
time. He is dug in and stands by his opinion. Now, tossing the word
"bigot" around is just plain silly.

I'm not familiar with Ashton, but he is coming across as trolling on
this topic, anyway. It doesn't seem as if he wants a discussion, but it
more interested in judging people who have a different opinion. If he's
not a troll I'd expect more reasonable discussion, I think.


A bigot doesn't like anybody. If they are gay, queer, carpet muncher's
or what. A bigot doesn't like them.

Any public business has a right to refuse service. No shoes, No shirt,
Three heads, No Service. Period.

I support the bakers right to refuse service. Just like I do not have
to frequent a gun free victim killing zone business. There is an App
for that.

Spit.



Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

So I put the question to you... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 01:21:07 -0500, "ChairMan"
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 15:57:29 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

If he's
not a troll I'd expect more reasonable discussion, I
think.

Wait until gun debates start. I'm known to silence
liberals. They have
no answers, discussion or reasonable reply's.

Some are like a circus barkers or a Town Crier.

P.S. A troll here is about to report me to DHS and have
them visit me,
like I give two squats for what they do. I can spin doctor
the DHS
too. Make them forget why they came to see me in the first
place. Walk
out scratching their noggins. Make 'em think they had an
epiphany

No offense, but you give yourself way too much credit. DHS
will come see strike out way before they see any of us.
Hell, they didn't even investigate Abdulazeez about the nuke
plant. All they are doin is collecting a pay check and doin
bammies bidding.
We're NOBODIES



They also like to spend time flying first class to "protect us" in
flight. Yet in first class they can't see squat. They should be
flying back near the rear toilets were they can actually see what's
happening in the plane. DHS is the biggest waster of gvt money in
existence.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 05:46:18 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 11:39:30 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:26:36 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/17/2015 5:21 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 10:47:56 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:06:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 6:34:37 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

What BUSINESS reason would a business owner have for refusing service
to gays or blacks?

They shouldn't need to give you or anyone a reason. It's their
business. No more so than a gay baker should have to give a reason
for refusing to provide a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
Or a black baker refusing to provide an anniversary cake for the
local KKK.

See how well and easy that works? No gag orders, no heavy hand of
the law required.



If you can't come up with one then you are a bald
faced bigot racist if you think it would be alright to refuse service
to gays, blacks, etc.

Baloney. That does not compute. Believing someone else should
have the freedom and right to do what they want with their own
business does not mean that I or anyone here would agree with what
they are doing. If I saw a baker that had a sign saying "whites only",
I wouldn't go there. Neither would the vast majority of Americans,
You could expect protests, business disruptions, and a loss of most
of your business. If you still want to do it anyway, who cares.
See how simple that is? No judges issuing gag orders, no heavy handed
policing.


And if my religion prohibits me from paying taxes to the gvt I should
be exempt from taxes under your views on this. THAT is the idiocy
your position leads to.

There is no such religion. But there are religions that don't want
to have anything to do with gay weddings. And you misrepresent my
views. I would not limit the right to discriminate to only cases
where it involves religion. My position is very simple. If it's your
business you should have the right to choose who you want to do
business with for any reason. You libs believe that somehow this
will immediately lead to mass discrimination. That's because you
have a very jaundiced view of your fellow citizens and don't trust
them. In reality, you'd have some small number of businesses that
would discriminate and I say so what. Just go to the 99% of businesses
that don't, actually welcome your business, etc.

The idiocy of your position is that a gay baker can discriminate against
Christians by refusing to bake a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
A pro abortion baker can refuse to bake a cake that says "Abortion is a sin".
But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?


Jesus would ask them to turn away from their sin, and follow him.

That's nice but would he refuse to bake cakes for them? Nothing I
read in the bible suggests Jesus would be the bigot that many
so-called "good Christians" are. Since you were too chicken to answer
the question it would appear you are one of them.

Again, with "bigot", "bigot", "bigot". The bible says that
homosexuality is a *sin*. I don't see how following your religious
beliefs makes you a bigot. Of course there is no similar outrage,
no similar need to crush the muslim religion, from the libs, is there?
Are they bigots for throwing gays off a buildings, hanging them from
cranes? Are they bigots for enslaving women, denying women basic
rights? Stoning women to death for adultery? Funny, I never hear
you libs complain about any of that. But when one baker somewhere
won't bake a gay wedding cake, OMG, now we have something worth making
a huge deal over and using all the power of the govt to crush a "bigot".


Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

So I put the question to you... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:46:22 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/19/2015 10:15 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 19:16:32 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 11:39:30 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher

That's nice but would he refuse to bake cakes for them? Nothing I
read in the bible suggests Jesus would be the bigot that many
so-called "good Christians" are. Since you were too chicken to answer
the question it would appear you are one of them.

Jesus sought out sinners and would never shun them or anyone. He spoke to
everyone. He excluded no one and yet in his name some seek to exclude
others. There is no type of person that he would not meet or preach to.
Since Jesus came to die for the sins (wrongdoing) of mankind, sin did not
prevent Him from loving people. He loved all sinners, including prostitutes.
Luke 7:36-50.

36 Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And He went to the
Pharisee's house, and sat down to eat. 37 And behold, a woman in the city
who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee'
s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, 38 and stood at His
feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and
wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed
them with the fragrant oil. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw
this, he spoke to himself, saying, "This Man, if He were a prophet, would
know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a
sinner."

40 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to
you."

So he said, "Teacher, say it."

41 "There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred
denarii, and the other fifty. 42 And when they had nothing with which to
repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will
love him more?"

43 Simon answered and said, "I suppose the one whom he forgave more."

And He said to him, "You have rightly judged." 44 Then He turned to the
woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you
gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and
wiped them with the hair of her head. 45 You gave Me no kiss, but this woman
has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. 46 You did not
anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant
oil. 47 Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for
she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little."

48 Then He said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."

49 And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, "Who
is this who even forgives sins?"

50 Then He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you. Go in peace."

(New King James Version).


Yet in spite of that the good Christians on here would refuse service
to gays DUE TO THEIR CHRISTIAN RELIGION!!! They make a mockery of
their Christianity.


I refused to post pagan content to a website because of my own belief
system. Someone else posted the content.

I could not in good conscious do it, but I made a way for someone else
to complete the task who had no issue with it.

IOW, I was freely practicing my belief system, and at the same time the
person who wanted pagan content posted to the webpage got their content
posted. We both practiced our "freedom of religion".

Likewise, christian bakers should be allowed to do the same.

Here's another chance for you to actually address this issue.....

Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

So I put the question to you... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:00:56 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/19/2015 11:46 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/19/2015 10:15 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Yet in spite of that the good Christians on here would refuse service
to gays DUE TO THEIR CHRISTIAN RELIGION!!! They make a mockery of
their Christianity.


I refused to post pagan content to a website because of my own belief
system. Someone else posted the content.

I could not in good conscious do it, but I made a way for someone else
to complete the task who had no issue with it.

IOW, I was freely practicing my belief system, and at the same time the
person who wanted pagan content posted to the webpage got their content
posted. We both practiced our "freedom of religion".

Likewise, christian bakers should be allowed to do the same.


If the law can force Christian bakers to make
cakes for homosexual events, what else can the
law force, that is against peoples beliefs?

Good question. Answer this one....

Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

So I put the question to you... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:46:33 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/30/2015 4:01 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:19:06 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/29/2015 2:51 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:17:52 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/28/2015 1:56 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 22:45:27 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/25/2015 10:14 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 19:53:46 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/25/2015 5:48 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:07:00 -0500, Muggles wrote:


Prejudice is only bad if it supports evil. Otherwise, prejudice that
supports good is good prejudice.


And being prejudiced against someone simply because they are gay is
evil. Glad you are finally seeing the light.


Politically correct statements really kill individuality and freedom of
thought. Why would you want to do that?

It's not my fault you are the way you are.


True, but the same goes for gays, don't you think?

The gays aren't trying to tell you who you may or may not marry.


No one is telling gays who to marry, either.


Now you are being absurd. They are telling people who want to marry
someone of the same sex that they may not, that they may ONLY marry
someone of the opposite sex.

duh Marriage has always been considered to be a union between male and
female. Any other combinations would be considered to be abnormal.



They were equal when
marriage was defined as being between one male and one female. Everyone
could marry the person of their choice of the opposite gender.


That is not equal. You can play with words and feign stupidity but it
only makes you look foolish.

Yes, it is equal. Everyone can marry the person of their choice of the
opposite gender. That's equal.


Redefine marriage to be a different combination and now you open a door
to allowing other combinations to marry.

Please address that legal precedence.

No comment?

The legal precedents were all taken care of when the SC said your
position was not legal. SO there is no need to even talk about them
anymore.

Wrong. Legal precedence applies to future cases regarding sexual
preference.

You still are backward looking. The OLD precedents that you believe
support your view were swept aside by the LATEST supreme court ruling.
That NEW ruling is now PRECEDENT. So arguing about the old ones is to
argue about something that no longer has meaning in terms of SETTLED
law.


At what point do you believe it would be wrong to limit marriage?

I don't understand your question.

Here's a question for you...

Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

So I put the question to you... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 07:56:11 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/17/2015 9:26 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/17/2015 5:21 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
The idiocy of your position is that a gay baker can discriminate against
Christians by refusing to bake a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
A pro abortion baker can refuse to bake a cake that says "Abortion is a sin".
But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?


Jesus would ask them to turn away from their sin, and follow him.


If they continued to sin, there is a very good
chance Jesus would decline to bake the cake.

According to the Latter-day prophets, homosexual
behavior is a very severe sin.


Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

So I put the question to you... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 07:26:01 -0500, Rascus Washington III
wrote:

On 07/18/2015 06:56 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/17/2015 9:26 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/17/2015 5:21 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:05:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
The idiocy of your position is that a gay baker can discriminate against
Christians by refusing to bake a cake that says "Homosexuality is a sin".
A pro abortion baker can refuse to bake a cake that says "Abortion is a sin".
But whhhooooh, if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay
wedding, they get fined $130K and have a gag order placed on them.
Welcome to 1984.

Do you think Jesus, if he owned and ran a Bakery, would refuse to bake
cakes for Gays simply because they were gay?


Jesus would ask them to turn away from their sin, and follow him.


If they continued to sin, there is a very good
chance Jesus would decline to bake the cake.

According to the Latter-day prophets, homosexual
behavior is a very severe sin.



Homosexuals can't reproduce on their own so why does God keep creating them?


It may well be that he loves them more then he loves straights so
that's why. Jesus never married and spent virtually all his time with
other men. The writing is on the wall here.......

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:59:39 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/19/2015 11:20 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:24:16 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/18/2015 11:56 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 07:56:11 -0400, Stormin Mormon

If they continued to sin, there is a very good
chance Jesus would decline to bake the cake.

According to the Latter-day prophets, homosexual
behavior is a very severe sin.

You don't know Jesus.


That's a very bold accusation, considering
that we have never met in person, and you
don't know me very well. My respect for you
just went down, a LOT.


When I say you don't know him it's a reflection of how you claim he
would take the side of the bakers in refusing to serve gays. Do you
really think if Jesus came to earth and spent a day working in a
bakery he would refuse service to gays because they are "sinners"?? Is
that really how you believe Jesus does his work?? Would he also
refuse service to adulterers, and those who dishonored their parents,
and to those who cut their hair and shaved their beards and those who
eat shellfish, all of which are sins according to the bible. If that
is how you believe Jesus does his work it makes me lose respect for
you.


Yes, really. That's why I wrote what I did.
You didn't stay on topic, the topic has none
to do with shellfish, shave, and beards. Please
do stay more on topic.

Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

So I put the question to you... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 06:57:42 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 9:25:21 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Probably so. Although some there think he would have made sure none
of the cupcakes got into the hands of gay people. I think Jesus would
have wanted the cupcakes to go to everyone, gay, straight, Trans,
whatever. That's how Jesus was.

From everything I've read about just HIS teachings and not the follow-on
works of others you're right on the money. He was unafraid to preach to and
comfort lepers.

With lepers there is no morality issue.

I don't remember him checking ID and criminal/sexual
history when he performed the miracle of feeding the poor.

Again the relevant example would be if the criminal was
seeking to buy a weapon from Jesus or an adulterer were seeking
to rent a room to commit adultery.


You would think
if homosexuality was the enormous evil that some religious types make it out
to be, that Moses and God would have mentioned it by adding an eleventh
commandment. Apparently thought crimes like coveting a neighbor's goods or
wife was of a higher priority.

I suspect Christian bakers will now have to run background checks because if
they get this up-tight about serving cakes to gay couples, then they should
also make sure there are no thieves, idolators, kids who disrespect the
parents, etc.

Again, the relevant comparison would be asking a baker to bake a cake
that says "I believe in having sex with children". And again, the bakers
in Oregon had served cakes not only to other gays in the past, but even
baked a cake for the gays involved in the action against them. They just
would not bake a cake commemorating a gay wedding. If I go to a gay baker
and demand that they bake a cakes saying "I believe in traditional marriage",
they refuse, I guess I should be able to go home, claim I can't sleep at
night over it and collect $130K too.


These are mortal sins, carved in stone, but the anti-gay
bakers don't seem too concerned with any of the 10 Commandments the buyer
broke - as long as he isn't gay.

Again, irrelevant and illogical. The bakers were not asked to bake
a cake saying "We believe stealing is OK" or "I believe in adultery".



It seems that setting yourself up as a Christian bakery or pizzeria can be a
ticket to instant wealth:

When an Indiana pizza joint said it wouldn't cater a gay wedding,
supporters took to social media and raised more than $840,000 to help the
shop. When a Florida baker was threatened after she said she wouldn't bake
an anti-gay cake, she raised nearly $15,000 in one month.
Two online fundraisers popped up when Ferguson, Mo., Police Officer Darren
Wilson was put on leave for fatally shooting Michael Brown. The pages earned
more than $400,000 in donations.

Sounds right to me. Where do I contribute? Amazing you'd throw
the skunk Michael Brown into the mix. He had just committed a felony
robbery, assaulted an officer, tried to shoot the officer and finally
wound up dead while charging back at the office. All supported by
witnesses and the physical evidence. There was no "hands up,
don't shoot", just a criminal skunk running amok.


Here's another chance for you to avoid answering this....

Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

So I put the question to you... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:08:31 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/22/2015 8:16 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Probably so. Although some there think he would have made sure none
of the cupcakes got into the hands of gay people. I think Jesus would
have wanted the cupcakes to go to everyone, gay, straight, Trans,
whatever. That's how Jesus was.

From everything I've read about just HIS teachings and not the follow-on
works of others you're right on the money. He was unafraid to preach to and
comfort lepers. I don't remember him checking ID and criminal/sexual
history when he performed the miracle of feeding the poor. You would think
if homosexuality was the enormous evil that some religious types make it out
to be, that Moses and God would have mentioned it by adding an eleventh
commandment. Apparently thought crimes like coveting a neighbor's goods or
wife was of a higher priority.

I'm sure you're aware of what the Bible states about homosexuality, so
your argument here is a bit odd.

And I'm sure you are aware that many things besides homosexuality are
sins in the bible. Yet no one of you wonderful Christians has the
slightest concern shown about people who eat shellfish, or who cut
their hair, or that weave two types of fabric together. For some
reason you come completely unglued over the barely mentioned sin that
you think is about homosexuality.

Perhaps you can answer this...

Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

So I put the question to you... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?