XPost: alt.atheism, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.law-enforcement   
   XPost: alt.politics.economics   
   From: sidgro241@tgmail.com   
      
   "BeamMeUpScotty"   
      
   wrote in message news:1QWmx.91976$RR7.83952@fx13.iad...   
   > On 7/7/2015 4:10 PM, wy wrote:   
   >> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 3:59:49 PM UTC-4, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:   
   >>> On 7/7/2015 1:03 PM, milt.shook@gmail.com wrote:   
   >>>> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 8:51:43 AM UTC-7, Steve wrote:   
   >>>>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 07:35:08 -0700 (PDT), milt.shook@gmail.com wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 7:14:10 AM UTC-7, Steve wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 08:59:30 -0400, NoBody    
   >>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 19:59:34 -0700 (PDT), milt.shook@gmail.com   
   >>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 7:55:22 PM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 07/06/2015 09:49 PM, milt.shook@gmail.com wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 5:51:43 PM UTC-7, David Hartung   
   >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/06/2015 05:23 PM, milt.shook@gmail.com wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 3:07:20 PM UTC-7, David Hartung   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/06/2015 10:56 AM, milt.shook@gmail.com wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 8:47:23 AM UTC-7, Tom Sr. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 11:24:30 AM UTC-4, David Hartung   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The cease and desist can be found on pages 42 and 43 of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the order.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Slander* is NOT PROTECTED by the 1st Amendment, Hartung.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems you did not know this.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fairness, the cease and desist order wasn't about   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slander. It was about the Kleins continuing to insist that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they intended to continue to break the law and keep refusing   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to serve the homo-gays cuz icky.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIlt, I just noticed this.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have characterized the Kleins actions and their   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation for those   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actions. The Kleins have what they believe to be valid legal   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious reasons for their actions, actions which they still   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be lawful under the US Constitution. Until you at least   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this, there is really not much more to discuss.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have characterized them as law-breakers because they are.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> They broke the law, and they have expressed a desire to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> continue breaking the law.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Either this is a country of laws or it's not. If they want to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> engage in civil disobedience, that's fine, but as someone who   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> has engaged in civil disobedience in the past, NO ONE gets to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> break the law and escape scot-free.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> And frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what they think is   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> constitutional. When you show such compassion to people who do   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> drugs and demand that they escape punishment for being addicts   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> with the same level of vehemence that you demand for the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Kleins, I'm afraid you have no credibility on this issue.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> They broke the law. It's really that simple. If they want that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> to not be the case, invite them down to Mississippi. But the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> people of Oregon have spoken; they've decided they don't want   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> people to be able to discriminate against people who happen to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> be gay.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> And I repeat. I can't explain the level of DISGUST I have for   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> a member of the Christian clergy advocating for someone to be   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to discriminate against people in the name of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> God/Christ. It's sickening.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Milt, I am very sorry that I disgust you so much, but the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> problem is   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> truly yours. I have never expressed anything remotely   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> approaching hate   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> for those who deal with same sex attraction.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Denying them their rights isn't hate?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Once again, David; we're STILL not talking about religious   
   >>>>>>>>>>> marriage. We're talking about the issue of civil marriage   
   >>>>>>>>>>> licenses.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> You are advocating to deny people their civil rights because you   
   >>>>>>>>>>> don't approve of the choices they make. How is that their   
   >>>>>>>>>>> problem?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> The left is utterly unable, or unwilling to recognize that to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> oppose   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> something is not the same as hating those who support it.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I'm afraid it is. When you're talking about denying them   
   >>>>>>>>>>> CIVIL RIGHTS because, in your view, they "sin" is hate. You are   
   >>>>>>>>>>> placing yourself above them. It's the same thing that kept black   
   >>>>>>>>>>> people as second-class citizens for a century after they were   
   >>>>>>>>>>> "freed." If it's not hate, what is it? What do you call it when   
   >>>>>>>>>>> someone denies someone else civil rights because of who they   
   >>>>>>>>>>> are?   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> You have a very warped understanding of hate.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Nope. That would be you.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> "I don't hate them. I just don't want them to have the same rights   
   >>>>>>>>> as me," is pretty warped.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Unless they are religious in which case rights are irrelevant to   
   >>>>>>>> Miltie.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Of course gays have always had the same rights as everybody else..   
   >>>>>>> Now   
   >>>>>>> they have special rights thank to the liberal judges   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> No. They were denied their rights previously. Now they have them.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Of course gays have always had the same rights as everybody else.. Now   
   >>>>> they have special rights thank to the liberal judges   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> There are no such things as "special rights," Stalker. Thanks for   
   >>>>>> playing.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)