Jim Henson Company breaks ties with Chick-fil-A over gay marriage stance

[USFREEDOM911]

Because I wanted to directly contradict you within the confines of the exchange.

But you didn't do that.
What you did was try to reset the goal posts; because you realized you were on the losing team.

 

[dixon76710]

But you didn't do that.
What you did was try to reset the goal posts; because you realized you were on the losing team.

No reset of the goal post and I and the cited court cases are still on the winning team. You have your views based upon emotions and hormones, I have mine based upon legal precedent.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No, you would want to. My heart pumps solid lead through my veins.

That would explain the "D008" tatooed on your forehead.

 

[signalmankenneth]

Chick-fil-A's Vice President of Public Relations Dies of Heart Attack

http://news.yahoo.com/chick-fil-vic...-dies-heart-192201763--abc-news-politics.html

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No reset of the goal post and I and the cited court cases are still on the winning team. You have your views based upon emotions and hormones, I have mine based upon legal precedent.

And yet you continue to show your ignorance.

 

[dixon76710]

And yet you continue to show your ignorance.

Youre the one who cant seem to form a rational response to the cited court cases.

 

[RockX]

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Youre the one who cant seem to form a rational response to the cited court cases.

But the court cases you cited was just you trying to move the goal posts.

 

[dixon76710]

But the court cases you cited was just you trying to move the goal posts.

Nope, I kicked the ball, sailing through the goal post YOU set up. Thats why you are now left without even a rational response.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Man, the only location in MI is Oakland University. It's gonna be a long lunch today.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Nope, I kicked the ball, sailing through the goal post YOU set up. Thats why you are now left without even a rational response.

While you made a nice attempt, with your pathetic comparison, you never kicked anything through any goal posts; because you moved them and were on the wrong field.

 

[dixon76710]

While you made a nice attempt, with your pathetic comparison, you never kicked anything through any goal posts; because you moved them and were on the wrong field.

Goal posts

1 The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.

Then what about those couples who are unable to have children or choose not to have them?

Goal

What about them? Marriage isnt limited to heterosexual couples because they all procreate, but is instead so limited because they are the only couples who procreate.


In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’”...And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Goal posts





Goal

Judges have reviewed the play back and was determined that not only did you have to many players on the field; but you were off sides, your main player was ineligible, and you ran the wrong way.
Goal declined and you can't play, for the rest of the season.
There are no whiny ass appeals allowed.
Now get yourself back to the locker room, take a shower, and slink back on the bus.

 

[dixon76710]

Judges have reviewed the play back and was determined that not only did you have to many players on the field; but you were off sides, your main player was ineligible, and you ran the wrong way.
Goal declined and you can't play, for the rest of the season.
There are no whiny ass appeals allowed.
Now get yourself back to the locker room, take a shower, and slink back on the bus.

Notice how this response and all your other responses that preceeded, dont contain anything relevant to the post you responded to. String together a few words if you can.

You responded to my answer, which was a response to someone else's comment; so why do you keep the conversation within the confines of the exchange?

But you didn't do that.
What you did was try to reset the goal posts; because you realized you were on the losing team.

And yet you continue to show your ignorance.

But the court cases you cited was just you trying to move the goal posts.

While you made a nice attempt, with your pathetic comparison, you never kicked anything through any goal posts; because you moved them and were on the wrong field.