Democrat Party’s Brand Of Intolerance

[jbander]

To Domer76: Do you know why there are special privileges laws, asshole?

Incidentally, attaching every cause to a greater issue is hardly new. Attaching homosexuality to so-called abortion Rights is the same thing homosexuals did with the Civil Rights Movement —— homosexuals and black Americans require special privileges. Sad to say, the privileges both groups got under the banner of Civil Rights were taken away from everybody else. If you plan on replying be sure to include one Right EVERY AMERICAN gets. In short: It ain't a Right when somebody else pays for it.

PLEASE —— no moral horseshit to justify taken Rights away from everybody you disagree with.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...79#post2799279

Nonsense. ME HATE DA WORLD NONSENSE!

[Flanders]

QUEER UPDATE

NOTE: No plaintiff ‘s lawyer ever fought his client’s case on the grounds of involuntary servitude:

I have a gut feeling that Supreme Court douche bags refuse the case because they are afraid to touch involuntary servitude. Note that two of Trump’s judges ran for the tall grass:

The court offered no explanation for the decision, as three judges, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said they would have heard the case.

But according to the Daily Mail, conservatives reacted negatively to Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett for "siding with liberals."

'Conservatives' on Supreme Court blasted for florist decision
By Bob Unruh
Published July 2, 2021 at 1:45pm

https://www.wnd.com/2021/07/conserva...rist-decision/

If Trump does run in 2024 he better forget about conservative votes. He never did anything for conservatives in four years; so what the hell good is he when he sends more liberals to the High Court? God only knows how many liberals he sent to the lower courts.

[Flanders]

I posted numerous messages about involuntary servitude cases since Elane Photography first hit the news:

It is all over.

Chief Justice Roberts famously said:

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

NOTE: There is no such thing as a dedicated lawyer.

Apparently, the high court is populated with queer judges and ACLU lawyers:

The Washington state florist who declined to design a floral arrangement for a same-sex wedding because of her Christian beliefs says she could lose "everything" after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected her appeal of her punishment, ending an eight-year court battle.

In a podcast interview, Barronell Stutzman noted the organized activism that drove civil lawsuits against her by the Washington state attorney general and the ACLU.

Her ordeal began when the ACLU "got ahold" of the same-sex couple and "sued me personally and corporately," and state Attorney General Bob Ferguson did the same.

Christian florist after 8-year court battle: 'I could lose everything'

Supreme Court rejected her appeal of punishment for refusing to assist same-sex wedding
By Art Moore
Published July 8, 2021 at 7:41pm

https://www.wnd.com/2021/07/4929280/

QUESTION: Do you think ACLU lawyer Ruth Ginsburg (1933 - 2020) would have voted for Barronell Stutzman’s constitutional protections or for an unconstitutional marriage?

https://s31242.pcdn.co/wp-content/up...g-1536x987.jpg

A gay couple who were married by Ruth Bader Ginsburg have praised the late Supreme Court justice as a “brilliant, inspirational” advocate for equality.

Patrick Kelleher
September 21, 2020

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/09/2...reatic-cancer/

Basically, destructive Supreme Court decisions make everything look like they vote for individual constitutional Rights. In fact, they always vote for the Rights of thousands of criminals, degenerates, and illegal aliens —— they never vote for the Rights of one American like Barronell Stutzman. If you want proof research the rulings corrupt lawyers on the Supreme Court ‘LEGISLATED’ in recent decades.

[NiftyNiblick]

For what reason would anybody empathize or sympathize with Christian homophobics?

Are we having a celebration of morally and socially deficient people?

[RB 60]

For what reason would anybody empathize or sympathize with Christian homophobics?

Are we having a celebration of morally and socially deficient people?

Yep. We sure are



They're your kind. Own it.

[danielpalos]

I posted numerous messages about involuntary servitude cases since Elane Photography first hit the news:

The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the owners of a photography studio who refused, because of their Christians beliefs, to serve a lesbian couple.

Judges order Christians to work for 'gays'
Court rules photographers must violate religious faith
Published: 08/22/2013 at 4:10 PM
BOB UNRUH

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/judges-or...work-for-gays/

Jack Phillips won his case in the Supreme Court, but that is not the end of it:

Once the left embraced behavior and sexuality as a civil right, and did so with the full backing of our corrupt media, it was the beginning of the end for the most vital element of American life, that unwritten social compact that so beautifully nutshells the Constitution — the idea of “Live and Let Live.”

For 200-plus years, the idea of live and let live helped to make America the freest nation on earth. Laws were not required to enforce this concept, because we were all raised right – taught that I may not agree with what you do or say, but as long as it doesn’t interfere with my right to do and say, I’ll defend your rights.

Nolte: Colorado’s Religious Persecution of Masterpiece Cakeshop Continues
by John Nolte
20 Dec 2018

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...hop-continues/

NOTE: No plaintiff ‘s lawyer ever fought his client’s case on the grounds of involuntary servitude:

VIII Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

XIII Amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Involuntary servitude aside, it is “Live and Let Live” that caught my attention in John Nolte’s article. That is a topic that television’s media mouths dare not mention.

The conspicuous manner that every organized religion’s true believers have in common is that not a one of them ever practices “Do not bother me and I will not bother you.” Or to use the better-known phrase “Live and Let Live.” Their reason is obvious. Parasites cannot live on tax dollars and also practice live and let live.

I cannot count the number of Bible-thumpers that found my threads in 18 years. Live and let live is the only thing I ever wanted from Bible-thumpers, yet their talking points never included “let live.”

Hanging onto the Second Amendment is the best chance Americans have of holding tyranny at bay. When all of the legal and philosophical arguments have been made CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED UNREGISTERED GUNS is the muscle that enforces live and let live.

You might ask yourself why Americans are being asked to die fighting tyranny in foreign lands while marching quietly down the road to tyranny in their own country? If you are squeamish about the implications think of unregistered guns as a deterrent busybodies cannot accept.

There is a deeper question that should be asked: Why are Democrats doing it? The simple answer is because they cannot mind their own goddamned business. Eric Hoffer’s great observation applies to Socialists much more than it applies to the followers of Supreme Deity religions:

“To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance.”

Organized religions were never a threat to individual liberties in America. Before Socialists began their campaign to install their own religion as the state’s religion no one was forced to join a church, or support a religion not of their own choosing. Freedom of religion —— as it was practiced in America before Socialists infiltrated the highest levels of government —— basically said live and let live. Meddlers abhor the very concept of letting others live their lives as they see fit. Live and let live is their intolerance.

It is not only dirty little moralists exercising political power that is destroying America’s moral fiber. Preventative medicine is more about the healthcare industry’s morality than it is about health. A nation of pill freaks buying prescription drugs to prevent this or that is the highest morality of all. Diet and exercise gurus promising healthier lives are moralists contradicting the pill priesthood if you do not count vitamins as pills.

Preventative medicine is a pharmaceutical industry scam. Drug companies were not making enough money selling drugs to people who were actually sick; so they increased their sales a thousandfold with the preventative medicine con job. The whole thing is a perversion of an “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

It turns out that doctors are worse than drug companies. Doctors aligned themselves with dirty little moralists when they started telling EVERYONE not to smoke. Do not smoke soon became lose weight and exercise. That was not enough. Doctors in Florida told their patients to get rid of their guns.

Question: Doctors scream bloody murder when anybody interferes in the doctor-patient relationship; so
how come doctors do not mind the ACLU getting in-between doctor and patient?

Happily, doctors cannot hide the harm they are doing with their assault on the Second Amendment. So I fear this scenario:

A patient gets rid of his gun on his doctor’s orders. A murderer breaks into the patient’s home and kills the patient’s children because he could not defend himself. The patient sues the doctor. How would you vote if you were on the jury?

In the same vain, Americans must take a long, hard, look at tort reform before those bums in Washington include it in more “healthcare reform.” I do not have much use for lawyers, but lawyers, and they alone, are all that stands between the public and medical industry butchery protected by law.

In short: when I need moral guidance I will go see the Pope not a doctor.

There were propaganda moralists long before the others jumped on the morality bandwagon. Movies and TV shows have always been dirty little morality plays; the Twilight Zone was the worst of them but not by much.

It can be argued that live and let live is also dogma, except that those of us who believe it do not give a rat’s ass how others live, worship, or eat; so long as they leave us alone.

I still have not figured out how forcing others to pay for abortions equals live and let live.

That seller should be operating on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre if the seller alleges to feel that strongly regarding operating in our secular and temporal market based economy. The buyers were not doing any Thing illegal; thus, they also have First Amendment protection from the seller; who is not any form of Religious authority but only and merely part of the Laity and should be getting laid instead of practicing the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God) concerning that "which belongs to Caesar" and not God.

[Flanders]

The buyers were not doing any Thing illegal;

To danielpalos: Massachusetts played first and loose with Pope’s adage:

https://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures...ope-322203.jpg

First we tolerate, then pity, then embrace, then legislate.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in the U.S. state of Massachusetts since May 17, 2004, as a result of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Constitution to allow only opposite-sex couples to marry. Massachusetts became the sixth jurisdiction in the world (after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec) to legalize same-sex marriage. It was the first U.S. state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-s..._Massachusetts

In truth, same sex marriage is ‘legal’ because the U.S. Supreme court failed to defend individuals:

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision Friday that recognizes same-sex marriage as legal and deems state-level bans on it unconstitutional.

The ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, backed by five on the nine-justice panel, is expected to pave the way for legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide at a time when an increasing number of countries such as those in Europe allow homosexual couples to marry legally.

https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/...e-sex-marriage

thus, they also have First Amendment protection from the seller; who is not any form of Religious authority but only and merely part of the Laity . . .

To danielpalos: According to you the First Amendment only protects filthy priests —— the very people who are trying to abolish individual Rights altogether.

Note that priests began doing their dirty business two hundred years ago:

In 1813 the Roman Catholic Church shot holes in the Constitution when priests were given the confessional-privilege. In plain English, priests got the opening they needed to legitimate coerced charity incrementally. (Doctors, lawyers, journalists, and psychiatrists followed priests with similar protections codified by politicians.)

Priests have been a pestilence infecting mankind from the day money was invented; so I would take the privilege away from priests first. If anyone is dumb enough to tell priests anything they do not deserve protection.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...he-4th-Of-July

[danielpalos]

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.


Thomas Jefferson

[Concart]

Cry some more, loser.

[danielpalos]

To danielpalos: Massachusetts played first and loose with Pope’s adage:

https://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures...ope-322203.jpg

First we tolerate, then pity, then embrace, then legislate.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in the U.S. state of Massachusetts since May 17, 2004, as a result of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Constitution to allow only opposite-sex couples to marry. Massachusetts became the sixth jurisdiction in the world (after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec) to legalize same-sex marriage. It was the first U.S. state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-s..._Massachusetts

In truth, same sex marriage is ‘legal’ because the U.S. Supreme court failed to defend individuals:

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision Friday that recognizes same-sex marriage as legal and deems state-level bans on it unconstitutional.

The ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, backed by five on the nine-justice panel, is expected to pave the way for legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide at a time when an increasing number of countries such as those in Europe allow homosexual couples to marry legally.

https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/...e-sex-marriage



To danielpalos: According to you the First Amendment only protects filthy priests —— the very people who are trying to abolish individual Rights altogether.

Note that priests began doing their dirty business two hundred years ago:

In 1813 the Roman Catholic Church shot holes in the Constitution when priests were given the confessional-privilege. In plain English, priests got the opening they needed to legitimate coerced charity incrementally. (Doctors, lawyers, journalists, and psychiatrists followed priests with similar protections codified by politicians.)

Priests have been a pestilence infecting mankind from the day money was invented; so I would take the privilege away from priests first. If anyone is dumb enough to tell priests anything they do not deserve protection.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...he-4th-Of-July

Like I am really going to take any secular and temporal, laity Baker or laity Photographer seriously about their Religious morality.

[Flanders]

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson

To danielpalos: Odd that you quote T. J. who also said:

In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty. Thomas Jefferson

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. Thomas Jefferson --Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

T. J. Also gave us the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State. From everything you and your kind say you want no separation at all.

It must be a bitch being squeezed between democracy and theocracy.

Like I am really going to take any secular and temporal, laity Baker or laity Photographer seriously about their Religious morality.

To danielpalos: Neither Jack Philips nor Barronell Stutzman tried to impose their morality on anyone. It is priests and freaks who insist on forcing their morality on everyone else.

Let me remind everyone that at one time or another priests in every major religion preached their brand of divine hatred disguised as love. ‘Hate a despised group in order to love everyone’ is the way it usually went. Torquemada and his fellows during the Spanish Inquisition is probably the best-known example. Race hatred is the only thing that has been added to the age-old formula.

Historically, sins became laws that prohibit. Over many centuries, thou-shall-not was codified; becoming the foundation for judicial systems. Thou-shall laws do not address crime and punishment, but they do require funding. Socialists/Communists could not rely upon laws that prohibit in order to advance Socialism so they devised thou-shall laws after they got the XVI Amendment to pay for all of it.

Unlike laws that punish real crimes, Socialism’s laws demand specific behavior from everyone.

NOTE: Necessity dictates exceptions; thou-shalt-not own a gun, and thou-shalt-not use rough interrogation methods on known-terrorists.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...36#post2758136

See Eric Hoffer’s observation following my messages.

[danielpalos]

Buyers also have First Amendment protection in public accommodation not Only sellers. The buyers were not conspiring to do any Thing illegal. Morals are subjective and why we have a First Amendment.

[Flanders]

Buyers also have First Amendment protection in public accommodation not Only sellers.

To danielpalos: Every one of those unconstitutional ‘laws’ forces somebody else to do something. John Roberts declaring the ACA a tax gave the country this:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”

Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
October 21, 2009
By Matt COVER

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hoye...-americans-buy

Note the key word is FORCE.

[danielpalos]

In this case, if the sellers were not so immoral in their disingenuity, they would operate on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre-over-morals basis to prove their Religiosity instead of just being practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God) with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.