Target loses $9 billion in market value in a week over LGBTQ Pride products

that is a fallacy, you are demanding more and more public benefits from the government without any justification.
The question is why the government should grant public benefits for gay sex.

 

Who has the right canceled? Socks cant be canceled. Burning them or leaving them unsold on the store shelf isnt cancelling.

 

Asking for examples is a fallacy?
How does that make sense to you?

I know that you responding directly would be devastating to your case so I don’t really expect one by this point.

The government doesn’t grant public benefits for gay sex. It does issue some automatic protections for individuals that sign a civil marriage document but those are given regardless of sex or even in the absence of.

Just say you hate gay people or don’t believe they should have basic rights and lest move on because this is just getting more and more embarrassing

 

It is fallacy becase it is based on false premses. Stating that somehow gay couples equal to heterosexual couples is false.
Heterosexual couples are fundamentally different since they still are treated differently by the government.
I can't answer any question or give any example until common denaminator is found.

 

You are saying a same sex couple is different than a heterosexual couple, how is a same sex couple any different from an infertile or elderly heterosexual couple?

And before you just scream “it’s a fallacy” — please identify which literary fallacy it is and how it fits that description.

Court after court — including very conservative ones — have said that same sex couples are similarly situated legally to opposite sex couples so unless you can actually express what your issue is this conversation is pointless.

 

Come on man, this is fallacy called special pleading
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
infertility is a special case that cannot be predicted in advance so it has to be governed under common rule.

 

How ironic that this is what you are doing.

Infertility can absolutely guaranteed in older generations. Procreation of the ability thereof have never been a requirement or prerequisite of marriage.

You cannot add new legal metrics as to why marriage exists to apply only to some groups and not others. If you want to say gay people shouldn’t be able to marry because of their inability to procreate together then this would also have to be a requirement for all heterosexual couples.

The easiest way to solve this would be to move marriage to a civil contract only with legal protections and make all financial benefits based only on if a child is involved. You still wouldn’t like this because it isn’t unusual for a same sex couple to have a child from another relationship.

So again, your metric doesn’t hold water.

 

Yea, the easiest way is to be fooled by homosexuals and grant them special priviliges. That what we know.
Old heterosexual couples are under hetrosexual couples category, you cannot extract them from the group because marriage supposed to last until death.
An attempt to find dumb people has been detected.

 

Ah, so you believe heterosexual should be able to have marriage rights just because they are heterosexual even if they cannot reproduce but homosexuals should be allowed to sign a contract because they can not reproduce.

That becomes an unequal and discriminatory application of the law. Which is why you keep losing in court.

But keep repeating failed legal challenges.

 

that is a faulty, non-functional logic that does not take into consideration all variables.

 

The courts and public opinion with a 73% margin disagree with your opinion. You are welcome to tell yourself whatever you would like though — but until you can come up with an actual legal argument… same sex marriage (herein known as marriage) is here to stay.

 

Public opinion is dependent on propaganda, and the fear of prosecution.
The court has granted unconstitutional benefits because in court's opinion Californians expressed animust against gays
The doctrine of animus was used to legalise same-sex marriage in the US. It refers to a subjective dislike or animosity in the actions of a government which leads to constitutional discrimination against certain groups
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/30/same-sex-marriage-and-animus/.

 

I really don’t care anymore

You cannot identify how a celibate or infertile heterosexual couple differs from a same sex couple and until you are able to do so you have lost this argument in both the courts and in the eyes of the public.

 

Yes, that is your trick, you are trying to impose faulty logic on honest people.
From the sexual interaction stand point government only can reliably identify two groups, those are heterosexual and homosexual.
Only heterosexual group requires government regulation, everything else is a private business.

 

Courts — including the USSC — have ruled sex (gender) and sexual orientation are protected classes and cannot be used to discriminate or disqualify individuals or deprive them of equal access of laws.

So unless you can state a statute requirement of marriage that would disqualify same sex couples then your arguments carry no weight.

 

It was about animus, not access to laws.
All access to all laws was already provided.

 

False, the USSC has ruled that sexual orientation is protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1986, Title VII

Again, You need a better argument than they should be denied just because their orientation as they has already failed in court, a conservative court at that.

 

Target forced to close stores as LGBTQ terrorist group makes multiple bomb threats saying they will kill shoppers and workers unless Target reinstates the child grooming items targeting under aged children. It is worth noting the only threats Target received back when all this started was from LGBTQ groups emailing bomb threats demanding child grooming items be put back into the front of stores



So all of threats of violence have come from self declared LGBTQ groups. It is also worth noting that radical leftist groups like Antifa routinely use bomb threats as a tactic to try to shut down any discussion or event they oppose for political reasons.

 

No one denied anything.
Yes, special public benefits should be denied for private activity.

 

You have been unable to identify what special public benefits exist. Please detail them

 

Say wha?




Harry Sisson
@harryjsisson

Hey Republicans, Why didn’t you care when Donald Trump sold pride merch? You claim Target and other brands with pride collections are “targeting kids” and are “satanic” but your cult leader did it and you had no problem with it. Republicans are a bunch of hypocrites. It was never about the merchandise being sold. It’s always been about their blatant homophobia and opposition to the LGBTQ+ community.




8:03 PM · May 29, 2023
·
2M
Views

 

Anyone know what "Mother" had to say about her boy's name being associated with gay campaign merchandise?

The same goes for shopping Trump/Pence GLTQ merchandise, eh Candy? lol



“As I said, we have them backed into a corner, and now is absolutely the time for us to pounce,” Owens said. “So do not shop at Target, or else you’re gay and you’re a pervert. And that’s all I have to say about that.”

 

They force bakers to bake cakes .