Gays organize Starbucks appreciation day

NOM and One Million Moms are not extremists, they have large followings, and they are plenty organized.

 

I never heard of any of this, and I am a newsaholic but (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if you arn't right. thanks

 

1.) Bullcrap. A Republic, such as we have, is indirect majority rule. OUR Consitution protects minorities, but not for sexual behaviors.

2.) TOTAL nonsense. Whenever given the opportunity to express our opinionm at the ONLY "POLL" THAT COUNTS, the BALLOT BOX, OPPONENTS TO GAY MARRIAGE HAVE VOTED 33-0 AGAINST.

Make up some more nonsense,or try to pretend that a "media poll" is more accurate than a REFERENDUM....

 

Well, "duh!"

 

Huh. I must have missed that part when I studied constitutional law in college.

The Constitution doesn't only protect minorities, BTW. It is supposed to protect us all equally from the harmful actions of the government or each other. If you drill down when you read the amendments, you'll note that -- with a few exceptions -- that each phrase of that document points back up to the broad task of defending individual liberty, primarily from government. And taken as a whole, the Constitution points to our nation's mission statement as explicitly stated in the Declaration, specifically: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

That all men are created equal. That no citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law -- it is these broad principles upon which every single word of the Constitution is based, and every law subsequent to its ratification must meet its scrutiny. You'll note there is no asterisk in there, no exceptions. No language referencing sexual behavior. So, maybe you want to reconsider your position?

 

what can I say, neither my taste buds nor my tummy is politically inclined

 

Incorrect, as usual. A republic like ours is specifically set up to prevent majority rule. A perfect example is the Electoral College. If we were majority ruled in any sense, the EC would not exist. Nor would our delegate system for Presidential candidates, in fact.

First of all, STOP BLOODY SCREAMING. If you want to emphasize a majority of your posts so bad, use the bold/italic/underline tags. That's why they are there.

Second of all, I'm not talking about bull(*)(*)(*)(*) media polls, I'm talking about the results of the votes. In every one that I'm aware of, the vote was always on a very close margin. Every time, almost (read: not half, but 30-49%) half of each state voted for same-sex marriage. If every state is nearly split down the middle on the issue, that means the country itself is pretty much split down the middle on it.

 

Not a very appropriate argument in this instance as the gays are insisting that their homosexual relationships be licensed and regulated by the government even though they never have been before.

Tax breaks, governmental entitlemens and the word marriage ARE NO life, liberty or property.

 

But they are equal representation under the law, which is protected in the constitution.

 

Fair enough. End government sanction and involvement in marriage.

 

They are not, true, but depending upon how we define marriage it is a contract and contracts are spelled out within the framework of the Constitution.

 

Looking, looking, looking for the exclusion of "sexual behaviors" from the God-given rights of "the pursuit of happiness"!

Not seein' that "exclusion" there, Grokee!

Maybe your Grandma Grundy School of Constitutional Law went a little overboard when preaching against sex in Republics!

 

One thing the gays will have in common with Starbucks. Teabag.

 

just had to go there didn't ya LOL

 

Has anyone ever wondered how same gender marriage has simultaneously become legalized in almost every country around the world? Even though not all homosexuals are for same gender marriage and even still a very small minority? And then again without a vote? Add to this the same growing trend with abortion and government controlled medical care. Are we getting the big picture yet? It has nothing to do with "rights" and everything to do with population reduction.

 

"Thank you Democrat Party for a stimulus plan that finally did something to help a business in the private sector"

Sincerely,

Chick-fil-a

 

Sorry never heard of them. Not a problem, those aren't the ones to worry about, it just the regular folks that will send the backlash. I know people from all sides on this, and simply too many are getting sick of the tactics the militant homosexuals use. Tone it down, stop with the assless chaps and g-string parades, show us some respect, and most us would come to the table and make a deal... It might not be the deal you demand, but we can at least work things out to a common understanding. Its the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing militancy that is irksome, so just end that....

 

...I'm sorry to hear that? Why is that at all relevant?

 

That's fine with me - good for them - I don't care if the gay community wants to support Starbucks or not - that's a better way for them to express their views than having 2 guys make out in a Chick-Fil-A store.

I won't be going their because their coffee is crap and even makes McDonald's coffee seem good in comparison, but they charge $5 a cup for it.

 

Oh SNAP!

 

Please. Cite the direct quote in the constitution that protects sexual behaviors.

You claim you went to college and studied constitutional law so let's see it.

LOL Another lazy liberal argument. If we expanded that clause to include sexual behavior (which no supreme court has EVER done) you could not discriminate against ANY sexual behavior including the ones you don't like.

So, maybe you want to reconsider your position?

 

Equal protection under the law. Fourteenth amendment. If marriage is a legally binding contract, recognized by the government, with attached legal "rights" - guess what? That means equal protection under the law must be afforded to two consenting adults of the same sex who wish to engage in that legal contract.

That, and the constitution does not make any statement about sexual behaviours, because you have any right you please as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others (and same-sex marriage does not).

 

Wrong. Sexual preference is never mentioned.

Wrong again. Sexual preference is never mentioned.

LOL Must be? Because YOU say so? You just made up "two consenting adults" Nowhere does it ever specify that. Its pathetic how painfully obvious you are trying to limit your new "right" that you've fabricated.

Neither does polygamy and its banned. Enjoy your fail.

Liberals like you want to broaden the definition of "equal protection under the law" while in the same breath try to limit this new broadening of the law to ONLY include 2 person consenting ADULTS citing ZERO law to back you up.

It is the very height of hypocrisy. If "equal protection under the law" is now expanded for sexual preference ALL must be included. You cannot limit the sexual preference if the only law you cite is equal protection under the law.

Its pathetic how transparent you are.

Let's review.

Sexual preference is never mentioned in "equal protection under the law"

Sexual preference is never mentioned in the 14th amendment which case dealt with race.

You cannot simultaneously create new rights then turn around limiting them with the same amount of law you broadened them with that does not include your new limitation.

Pretty laughable you "thought" you would get away with it.

 

Nothing is specifically mentioned as protected. By your logic, we can decide any belief or behaviour as unconstitutional.

It's pretty sad that you're not even trying to get the point. Although, with such an inflammatory and absurd avatar, I shouldn't be surprised.

The law (currently) holds that marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. That point is an irrefutable fact. Thus, equal protection under the law means that same-sex marriage has to be a legal contract between two consenting adults for it to be legally protected.

Yes, it is, and there's no (*)(*)(*)(*) good reason for it to be and I'd like to see it allowed too. What's your point?

Oh, watching you flail is so sad. I almost feel pity for you.

I explained this above.

Nothing is mentioned specifically in EPUTL. So what?

Immigration, actually, but that's only what inspired the amendment. That doesn't mean it only refers to immigrants and in fact SCOTUS holds that it applies to everyone.

I'm not creating "new" rights, nor am I limiting anything.

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that denial and childish insults is what constitutes a refutation?

 

Well said.