IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov
XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.politics.obama, alt.revisionism
XPost: alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy, alt.politics.immigration
XPost: alt.true-crime, alt.politics.guns, misc.survivalism
XPost: soc.culture.usa, alt.survival, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: alt.politics.economics
From: I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.
BI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov
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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, but wait! Let's try something:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell us what those "special rights" are. List them here. Tell us which
"special rights" same-sex couples have that opposite-sex couples don't.
>>>>
>>>> They have new, special rights that allow them to marry people of the
>>>> same sex, of course...
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>
>>> Funny, SCOTUS didn't think so. In fact, the ruling declared that a right
that they should have had all along.
>>>
>>> Guess we can add "understanding how rights work" to list of shit you don't
know...
>>>
>> If gays had the right all along, why didn't heterosexuals have the right
>> to marry the same gender all along?
>
> Can you get any more profoundly stupid? Yeah, I bet you can.
>
NOT much of an answer.... but then we don't expect much from Affirmative
Action Liberals here do we?
--
That's Karma
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
