• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Photography (Weddings) Business and Homosexual Agenda

Discussion in 'Current News & Events' started by Monksailor, Nov 14, 2017.

  1. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,372
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    "Once homosexual relationships are legal". Yep, that's the key to the Germanic mind: once something is legal it can no longer be resisted on moral grounds. Once immorality is forced upon people through legalistic legerdemain, the result is a relentless no-holds-barred race to the bottom.

    The partisans on the one side turned a blind eye to the sexual impropriety of their leader. Now the other side will not allow its leaders to be held to the old standards either. Winning becomes not just everything, but the only thing, because winning means the power to set the law. This works until everybody hates each other and would rather kill the enemy rather than continue to play the game with each other. Net result: civil war.

    So be it.
     
  2. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,372
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Yeah. I'd say that the battle for sexual morality is as lost as the battle to save the lives of babies.
    Polygamy and lowering the age of consent to the low teens, legalizing phoebephilia, are the next, inevitable steps. So be it.
     
  3. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,372
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Of course, the people on the other side are not going to take it lying down. What is and is not the law is ultimately decided by the federal courts, and the current President has the power to pack the courts now. There are a huge number of vacancies thanks to several years of Republican filibusters, and there is no longer the ability of Democrats to filibuster appointees (thanks to Harry Reid's actions to get Obama's appointees on the court) or the ability of senators to block appointees for their states through the "blue slip" process.

    So, this President has the largest number of empty seats to fill in recent times, and the ability to fill them rapidly, with people who agree with him ideologically. Each of these appointments is a lifetime appointment. So, whether the things that some have asserted about the law or the opposite view prevails will depend on the judges, which depends on who controls the Senate. That power is of such importance that Roy Moore's past behavior, if it actually happened, isn't going to prevent the voters from seating him. Too much power is at stake to care about morality.

    This is what a race to the bottom looks like. It will either end in bloodshed, or in one side dominating the other, just like the slavery issue did.
     
  4. badatusernames

    badatusernames Member

    172
    +137
    United States
    Christian
    In Relationship
    .
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2017
  5. Monksailor

    Monksailor Member Supporter

    208
    +95
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    We ARE called to be "the salt of the earth." Thank you for the compliment friend.
     
  6. LinkH

    LinkH Regular Member

    +643
    Christian
    Married
    Society would sanction someone who did that... nowadays. Does the law have to touch on this?

    Would you really want someone to touch your food if they hated you and didn't want you there? Wouldn't it be better for the minority who the owner hates not to eat there?
     
  7. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,372
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    No. Too much blood has been shed, and too many lives destroyed over too many centuries in this country. The racist, segregationist side of this country NEVER practiced live and let live, not ever. They were masters, and rapists, and killers - then they were warriors in the field - traitors - then they fought another century long rearguard action to keep the blacks down.

    In this particular case, it is imperative that the law itself - the full armed might of the nation, and the state, and the town, come down on the bitter racist holdout's head and force him, against his will, to do what he hates. If he cannot stand it, he can emigrate from the United States for good. He has no right to earn money in the American economy if he will not serve black people.

    Too many people died. We had to fight too hard. The other side forfeited its right to decide who it would serve by refusing to accept defeat. They pressed an argument past reason and, after having raped millions of people (22% of African-American blood is "white" - this did not happen because a fifth of black Americans fell in love with whites and had kids. It happened because generations of white owners raped their black slaves at will), and having caused nearly a million deaths in a treasonous war, and having imposed Jim Crow after that for another century - that viewpoint has lost its freedom to speak.

    So no, that viewpoint no longer has the right to the benefit of the doubt. The white business owner will serve every black who enters, and he will do so without a racist display, or his property will be seized and he may end up in a cage. The INTENT of the law is to do to white racists what people do to dogs who poo on the floor: to rub their noses in what they hate and make them feel their powerlessness and their submission, to reinforce it at every turn, to make it clear - at federal and state gunpoint - that no, they no longer have freedom of THAT sort of speech or business association.

    No allowances. No slack. No mercy. They never gave mercy, now none will be given. They will serve every black person who comes in their door, or they will close their doors, lose their businesses, and go live in the projects with the people they hate. This is called "justice".

    Once you shed blood, things change for good. There is no reason to give the white supremacists even the slightest toehold. There is no right in America to not serve blacks. That right was forfeited by three centuries of horror, treason, war and resistance. We won, they lost, and they will submit or be crushed. We know what they think, which is why we force them to serve. We know they hate it. We know they think it is unjust. That is EXACTLY THE POINT. They were wrong. They lost. And now they are forced - like slaves - to do what they hate, on pain of losing again.

    It's very intentional. No, the law cannot make any allowance for the white racists. They will crawl. They will be subordinated. And if they rise up again in arms, they will be shot down again like dogs.

    Lather, rinse, repeat until it is finally beaten out of them.
     
  8. Monksailor

    Monksailor Member Supporter

    208
    +95
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Yes! I surely would! It is my RIGHT. If I die of food poisoning my dog, Dog-Gone- It, can sue the heck out them! It is also my RIGHT to go on a green light. If someone blasts through an adjacent red light and explodes into my car and kills me after I have taken my immediate RIGHT to go; well, even though I WAS right, I'll also be dead. My dog can sue them, too. It is good to be right even though it kills you. Especially, about the small stuff. :) At least I'll die knowing that I was RIGHT or was that Left?


    And, Vicomente 13, as intimately sure as you are about how things used to be and the details thereof, you must be a time traveler 'cause NO textbook or movie or etc. except REALLY being there could make you so sure. Every person I have met with such a hateful/oppressed perspective as yours is steeped in the idea that all of our text books and movies are nothing but lies about how things used to be. Howdie, to you! I have never met a time traveler. Did you know that one of the 4 ways satan attacks a person is through Oppression? (A born-again Christian, covered in Jesus, the Christ's blood can only be attacked in 3 of these 4 ways; oppression is not the excluded one. For all four see: "The Adversary" by: Mark Bubeck)
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  9. LinkH

    LinkH Regular Member

    +643
    Christian
    Married
    Maybe the first generation of segregationists were slave holders, or descendants of them, but in the 1950's, segregationists weren't slave holders.

    One white supremicist who wanted to start an all white town who has been in the news recently is part black acording to a genetic test, so his ancestors probably weren't all slaveowners.

    [quote
    In this particular case, it is imperative that the law itself - the full armed might of the nation, and the state, and the town, come down on the bitter racist holdout's head and force him, against his will, to do what he hates. If he cannot stand it, he can emigrate from the United States for good. He has no right to earn money in the American economy if he will not serve black people.[/quote]

    Why? Revenge? Forcing your way? If a restaurant owner didn't want to have blacks eat there, he'd be ostracised.

    The reason I am writing this is because legislation that was meant to prevent racial discrimination and discrimination based on gender is being twisted to give special protection to people who engage in sexual perversion or have an identity that is related to sexual perversion. A more straight-forward way of dealing with it would be to actually address those portions of the law, but ther eis alack of common sense in general in society, and that's the issue.

    Anti-dscrimination laws are way too intrustive. Why can't someone own a busineswith 20 employess and hire only Christians? Why can't a kosher food establishment hire only Orthodox Jews? Why can't Muslims hire only Muslims to prepare halal food? Especially fia company isn't publically traded, why should the government intrude into the private decisoins of business owners. This can extend into issues of freedom of conscience. What if someone believes 'equally yoked' refers to business endeavors? A sole proprietership is legally the same thing as the owner. Why should anti-discrimination laws apply. IF you can have whoever you want in your house, why not your own business?

    If you have over a certain number of employees, the EEOC can persecute you for not calling a man 'she.'

    I heard about a young person, probably a college students, who put up an ad looking for a Christian roommate. The local housing authority went after her for violating some discrimination code. Apparently, they say you aren't allowed to discriminate in regard to who shares your actual living space. If you got sick of the last devil-worshipper roommate sacrificing chickens in the bathtub, you aren't supposed to discirminate against the next one.

    If you are looking for a roommate, and the potential roommate is a racist, isn't putting, "white roommates only" actually doing an ethnic minority a favor. Who wants to room with a racist? It saves the ethnic minority a trip over there, and it saves the racist from having to buy rebel flag throw pillows to disuade blacks from living there without outright rejecting them.
     
  10. RocksInMyHead

    RocksInMyHead God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

    617
    +196
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Sure, after 50+ years of it being against the law and 50+ years of racism being a Bad Thing in the American social consciousness. It was commonplace before it was made illegal though, and few people raised a stink.

    The problem is that most people in the US don't agree with you on the idea that homosexuality is sexual perversion. And when it comes to laws, it's what society thinks that matters, not what the individual thinks. I guarantee you that when racism was criminalized, there were people who believed wholeheartedly that society was lacking in common sense and that mixing of races amounted to perversion - in fact, such people still exist. But their views were not allowed to supersede those of society as a whole, and here we are.

    A business uses government services and receives benefits from the government - therefore it must follow government regulations. And, unlike your household, a business deals with the public (customers, employees, etc), so it does matter what's there. You can't control who enters your business (unless it's a private club), so you must have consideration for all who may enter.

    Only if she has requested that you call her "she" and you have refused. That is not persecution. If I have told my co-workers that I prefer to go by "Rocky" and they insist on calling me something else deliberately, that's perfectly valid grounds to file a workplace harassment claim. The scenario you present is no different.

    Colleges definitely take things too far sometimes, but at the same time, part of college is stepping outside of your bubble and experiencing new things. One would hope that the current occupants of the house would interview prospective roommates in some fashion in order to weed out those who might not fit with their lifestyle. But there's no inherent reason why an atheist or member of another religion couldn't live comfortably with a group of Christians.
     
  11. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,372
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    The 1950's segregationists were the grandchildren of the traitors who had to beaten down by force in the 1860s. By the 1950s, the broader set of issues that drove the Civil War had distilled down to one thing: oppression of blacks. Whatever their grandfathers had THOUGHT they were fighting for, the people of the 1950s, and 1960s, and today, who continue to fight for the right to discriminate against blacks, do so out of hatred, and do so out of a bitter-ender "we will never be defeated" mindset. They're the grandchildren of Nazis who refuse to let go.

    They weren't slaveholders in the 1950s, they were people forcing blacks to the back of the bus, erecting white's only drinking fountains, turning lose the dogs and tear gas on equal rights marchers, and provoking the President to send federal troops in to desegregate schools.

    The part-black guy who wants to start a whites only town is part black because his black grandmother slave ancestor was raped by a white master.

    There is no right to have a whites only town on American soil. It will be stopped. If one is stood up, the police forces will break it, federal authorities will seize property. Whites have no right to set up whites only towns on American soil. That right was lost forever in the deaths of the civil war, the endless resistance of the racists, the riots that burned cities. We have had enough white racist imbecility in this country. Now we respond to it with force.

    Why?

    Revenge?

    Yes, that is certainly part of it. Absolutely. Why do the white racists remain stubborn in their evil and stupidity? Satan? Well, Satan cost a million Americans their lives, and millions more their liberty, on this one issue. The racists forced us onto the battlefield, and they killed us in very large numbers. They lost their right to exist on our soil. If they cannot abide by it, they should leave America. America does not tolerate their beliefs, and will make a special point of crushing them by force, wherever they pop up. We oppress anti-black racists for the same reason that Germans today oppress Neo-Nazis, the French oppress anti-Semites, and the Japanese oppress militarist nationalists: weakness in our national makeup leads each of these nations towards a particular form of evil, and that form of evil caused those nations to shed oceans of blood in recent history on just that issue. The evil had to be forced down by military force, and we are not going to let it get up again. And we're going to punish any idiot now who refuses to accept the correct judgment of history and stands up to fight for THAT cause again.

    But yes, revenge. Forcing our way. This issue was fought out on the battlefield. My side won, at the cost of a half million dead people. We're not going to forget that, particularly not since the losers did not relent in their hellbent determination to hold down the former slaves, so in our own lifetimes we have had to experience race riots in our cities, not because of slavery of old, but because of the segregation and redlining and refusal to build proper schools and every other stubborn enforcement of racism by the side that lost. So in our lifetimes - mine anyway - Mississippi burned, and Detroit, and Watts - and that is because the losing side did not give up on their racism and determination to segregate. We still bear the legacy of their resistance to doing what's right. So continuing to force our way is very important. It is imperative that the racists understand who is master, and it is not them, not anymore. They need to continue to be beaten and forced to do what they hate, against their will, so that it gnaws at them every day. Their children and their grandchildren, the new generations, will see the price they bear for their hatred, and will see how society punishes it, and they will not be tempted, for the most part, to follow their parents and grandparents down the rathole of stupid, stubborn racism. But some will go there, and those we will apply the law to, very publicly, to make examples that instruct everybody else. The racists kept the slaves in line by making examples, and that is the way that we keep the racists in line also. Since they won't change their minds, they are publicly pilloried, to influence the minds of others. It is very effective. There is far less white-on-black racism in America than there was when I was young. I see that tide rolling out, and think it is a great victory. But I recognize that the victory was won over a 150 year period by first defeating the racists on the battlefield, and then holding the threat of armed might over their heads (and from time to time using the might of the FBI and federal prosecutors on their heads). They won't change their minds, but they can be terrorized into changing their behavior. Their stubbornness has made it such that the only way that works is force and threats of force.

    And because of all of the harm they inflicted in the past and would inflict in the present, the victors - who really do hate the racists every bit as much as the racists hate the blacks - are more than happy to beat them into submission and keep doing it.

    When they fired on Fort Sumter in 1861, they started a fight that is still going on. Neither side gives the other any quarter. And that will continue until their side is all dead and gone. That idea cannot be allowed to live on American soil. Three centuries of damage is enough. The laws now are designed to act as a sort of roach motel: they FORCE the racists to serve black patrons, thereby causing them to do stupid things - like take a stand and deny black people service: then we shut them down and leave them poorer and weaker in a society based on money, or stupider things - like join the Klan: then they get on lists and can never hold government jobs or high-paying jobs, sliding further down the economic scale and unable to get out; or insanely stupid things - like shooting people: then we kill them.

    They're resolute in their racism and hatred. And so are we. But we have won continuously since 1865, and we are much smarter than them. We'll continue oppressing them. Anti-Black racism has a big "Wrong Way" sign on it. It is enforced. It will be enforced. it's not a matter of free speech. Given our particular history, it is a matter of keeping the peace and of national integrity. If you have to hate black people, you have no place in America. You cannot fit in here. Leave.

    Now then, the black-white issue is the ONLY issue like that in our history. The Indians were treated badly, but in a different way, and were not so numerous. And once they gave up, they were not maliciously pursued through the centuries the way blacks have been. America has a bad conscience about the Indians, we knew we did bad and we admitted it, so we've tried to not keep doing it. With the blacks, though, it was illegal for whites and blacks to marry into 1967 in some places. America's evil is thickly entrenched, and has had to be ripped out by force. Every black person in America born before 1964 lived in country that was formally segregated in much of its territory. This is not ancient history.

    I agree with you that extending the particular case of aggressive civil rights legislation regarding blacks to cover gays is ridiculous. It is, likewise, ridiculous to pretend that Hispanics, or any other minority (hang an asterisk on the American Indian case) was ever treated as consistently viciously, for so long, as the blacks. Homosexual behavior is a squidgy business, but it is also private activity. Being black is visible, and there's nothing morally questionable about it. They don't stand on the same plane. Gays do not all descend from slaves. Their DNA is not replete with centuries of rape. They were the cause of a civil war and a civil rights movements. Nobody made gays move to the back of the bus. Homosexual behavior is a private activity, not an inevitably exposed public trait.

    Homosexuality stands along side of Pedophilia - two forms of sexual deviancy that the society does not like. We have moderated our stance on the one, but have not liberalized our view on the others.

    Being black isn't deviant at all.

    The gay rights activists, and other activists, have made a lot of ground equating gays to blacks, but it is ridiculous as a matter of facts. Unfortunately, people don't like to speak blunt truths. There is a difference between the oppression of 13% of your population based on their region of origin versus oppressing 1% of your population based on sexual deviancy. And we don't oppress the gays for having sex because, quite unlike the racists against blacks, we considered the situation and decided that we were wrong to oppress people based on their private activity. But the racists will go on hating blacks NO MATTER WHAT.

    So we beat them down, and it is right and just to do so.

    It isn't really right and just to pretend that gays are like blacks in our history. They aren't. But there's so much political power in doing so that unless that movement is addressed by power, it will continue to advance. The impending Supreme Court decision, when the court decides whether or not a Christian baker has to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, will decide what direction the country will go.
     
  12. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,372
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    That's true under the present law. But the law is oppressive, the majority of the people will not tolerate being controlled in that way, and that will change. Indeed, the pressing of the black-white issue into places that it doesn't belong resulted in ill-gotten gains by certain minorities that have become oppressive in the opinion of the voting plurality. The pendulum is swinging the other way in that regard.

    However, the issue with the blacks is simply different, and that pendulum will not swing back, because it was broken off. Gays don't have the numbers, or the support, or the history of horror at the hands of Americans that blacks do. The only other people who have a valid claim to some sort of special law set because of the past are the Amerindians, and they do have various treaty rights, etc.

    The logic of the gay movement irresistibly presses onward to pedophilia, and that is where it - unlike the black civil rights movement - touches the third rail and ends up being rolled back.

    We're really not going to be, as a society, bullied into calling men "she" because they demand it. We'll vote in a long line of Trumps and tear the law apart and remake it if that is where it keeps on being pushed.
     
  13. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,372
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others

    Go get a book: "Without Sanctuary". It's a picture book, not a lot to read. Go look at the photographs of a past you don't think exists. Those people didn't hide what they were doing. They were proud of it, and felt entitled to do it. Go look at that past. And weep. No quarter was granted then, and none will be given now.
     
  14. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,372
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    BTW, I mostly agree with you. But I don't think that the gay movement is going to arrive at the same absolute victory that the blacks did, for the simple reason that there is not the collective memory of a million dead, of armies on the march, and there are not two political parties that formed themselves into their configurations to fight that war.

    People DO think that gays are sexual deviants. They are just willing to TOLERATE them. SOME people, a minority of them, think that there is no difference between gays and heterosexuals, that homosexuality is not squidgy or deviant. But that's really a pretty small portion of the population. People's minds are not changing in THAT regard. They are willing to be open and tolerant. They are not willing to date a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and they never will be.

    That's the difference. Whites and blacks marry now, because they've admitted each other is human.

    But the transexual movement demands that we say boys and girls are the same thing, with interchangeable parts. Society is never going to believe that madness, and never going to accept it, not ever, even if we become pleasant and tolerant to people with sexual deviancy, we always see the deviancy and we never think it's not deviant. We work at being tolerant and socially pleasant. We don't think that boys and girls are interchangeable.
     
  15. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,372
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Really? the short form of "transsexual" is a curse word according to this site? Prissy and priggish programming.
     
  16. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,372
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    The answer to all of your questions "Why?" "Why?" "Why?" is this:
    The anti-black racists in America fought too hard, too violently, too long against the simple recognition of the equality of blacks. Because they fought so hard and resisted so violently, more and more force, and more and more law, had to be brought to bear to defeat them and bring them to heel.

    That evil was rooted so deep in the American psyche that it required a Civil War, federal troop mobilizations, a series of Supreme Court rulings and constitutional amendment, mass protests, riots, and endless lawmaking and new enforcement in order to uproot it. In the process, a vastly powerful legal machine was created to mercilessly enforce black equality. Now we have by and large achieved black equality (although not wholly, there is STILL a Ku Klux Klan, STILL a guy out there who wants to set up a white town, etc.), but this vast machine of enforcement and precedent exists, with all of that power in it, which is then applied to other situations.

    So, the answer to your questions ultimately is: we have lost those liberties to which you refer because of anti-black racists. Because they would not stop and do the right thing, we had to create a leviathan to defeat them. And now that leviathan is brought to bear on every other problems.

    Lay the blame squarely at the feet of those to whom it belongs: the slavers, the secessionists, the segregationists and the racists who would not give up their evil, and who fought to the death. The fact that there still are people trying to push those tired old evils means that the mechanism remains in place.

    It's their fault you can't have nice things.
     
  17. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    800
    +325
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    The law is clear that everyone, even people you don't happen to like, have the same rights and legal protections that you enjoy.

    Because if that business owner is hiring based on an applicant's religion then s/he is engaging in discrimination.



    [qutoe] I heard about a young person, probably a college students, who put up an ad looking for a Christian roommate. The local housing authority went after her for violating some discrimination code. Apparently, they say you aren't allowed to discriminate in regard to who shares your actual living space. [/quote]
    No, you aren't allowed.

    I am sure you think yourself terribly clever relying on a homonym to conflate the prejudicial or disadvantageous treatment of an individual based on his or her status as a minority with the ability to judge well and fairly. But you are not.

    So how about addressing the issue rather than playing word games?
     
  18. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    800
    +325
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    no more or less than heterosexual behavior is a private activity. What you are doing is a common tactic among racists, you are trying to define a minority based on a sex act rather than for what they are. When you define gays and lesbians to just a sexual act you are doing exactly what racists do when they speak of blacks as not just rapists but as little better than animals incapable of any higher emotion.


    neither are all blacks.

    and blacks were never imprisoned and subjected to torture and mutilation.

    The hatred you express is however deviant.


    The simple fact is that no one is saying that blacks and gays are the same, what is being pointed out is that the rhetoric of racists is indistinguishable from the rhetoric of homophobes.


    So what is the magic number? just how large does a minority have to be for bigotry and discrimination against them to become bad things?
     
  19. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,372
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    In America, the magic number is about 1 million and 100. 1 million American lives lost on the battlefield and in the intendant chaos of a Civil War over slavery, and the former advocates of slavery still fighting a legal rearguard action to hold the blacks down 100 years later. All of that blood and fighting set that issue aside and apart.

    Now, the homosexuals (and others) have sought to seize the power inherent in the system set up to destroy and erase the white anti-black racists to use it for their own purposes, but it isn't going to work. The country does not have nearly as much committed to the gay issue as the black-white issue. We don't have a million dead and 100 years of brutal resistance. We a few people who kept what they did secret, and a population that has become more tolerant, but is now being pushed and talked at AS THOUGH were were white racists, using the laws that were enacted against white racists who killed a million people.

    So far, that strategy has been successful, but only at the judicial level, really. The states that voted on gay marriage, voted it down. It was the Supreme Court who reversed that. The courts have been activist. But the composition of the federal judiciary is changing quite rapidly, because a people, fed up with a lot of nonsense, elected Trump.

    Are we going to revoke tolerance for gays? No. But the Supreme Court will probably rule that a Christian baker does NOT have to put his artistic talents into preparing a wedding cake for gays, and with that decision will come the turning of the tide. Tolerance will be maintained, but the aggressive advance of those who would suppress everybody else's liberty in service to their deviancy will be halted and thrown back, and more decisions like that will follow.

    Where we will end up is that gays will preserve "marriage" rights, and general tolerance will be maintained. Gays will be able to get "general commercial rights' - gas stations won't be able to refuse service. But gays and transexuals, etc., will not be able to force people to provide individualized services pertaining to their homosexuality, such as baking a wedding cake or taking photographs.

    The power inherent in the laws to prevent the oppression of blacks will not be fully applied to the case of gays, because gays have not been oppressed in the ways and for the reasons blacks have.

    You're not going to like that, so you're going to yell your head off at me for saying this. I would suggest you watch what happens, because you'll be yelling at the populace in general, and the Supreme Court, and everybody else soon enough. You'll see. The gays overplayed their hand with the wedding cake and the transexuals-are-whatever-gender-they-choose-and-you-have-to-speak-as-they-demand trend. It won't hold in this society. It's too offensive to too many people, and gays ain't blacks.
     
  20. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,372
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Half of black men have been in prison. The police stop them and shoot them in very high numbers. What are you talking about? Do you live in a cave?
     
Loading...