Gay Pride flag flown over State Capitol

Jul 2015
2,515
1,103
USA
#33
7



For the same reason that blacks "ran to court"
No. They worked to have our Constitution amended, which is the proper method to accommodate for changing times.

JWK



The Democrat Party Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
 
Jul 2014
14,241
8,661
massachusetts
#34
Why on earth is a flag representing sexual deviants being flown over a state capitol and pro-life banners not being flown on government property?

See: Evers orders gay pride flag to fly over Wisconsin Capitol

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Gov. Tony Evers has ordered a rainbow flag symbolizing gay pride to be flown over the Wisconsin state Capitol for the first time.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to pass legislation authorized under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, is a usurpation of power not granted.
What are they flying the flag of a Christian Religion?

Because you said sexual deviants, which pretty much describes the clergy.
The rainbow flag represents normal people.
 
Likes: Lyzza
Nov 2005
8,361
2,880
California
#35
7-year olds should not be sexualized, but what you just showed is not rationally claimed as "sexualizing" anything.
How do you classify that as "sexualizing"?
You still haven't answered this question johnwk.
The only rational interpretation is that you see that 7-year old as "sexual", which is profoundly disturbing. I am hoping you can clarify how you classify that as "sexualizing" which excludes that interpretation...


For the same reason that blacks "ran to court" when they were discriminated against by businesses after Civil Rights legislation passed.
No. They worked to have our Constitution amended, which is the proper method to accommodate for changing times.
In many ways, your response is just profoundly ignorant and missing the reality of the situation.

It seems obvious you are referencing the 14th amendment. But the 14th amendment DID NOT give blacks the capability to "run to court" when a business discriminated against them.
Do you understand that?

The Civil Rights Act, utilizing the powers of the constitution, is what gave blacks the capability to "run to court" when a public business discriminated against them.
Do you understand that?

The Civil Rights Act CLEARLY DID NOT limit itself to just "race", but also covered religion, gender, national origin, etc, etc, ...
Do you understand that?

Likewise, when legislation similar to the Civil Rights Act got passed in various areas which required the local government to not discriminate based on sexual orientation, that likewise gives gays (as well as straights) the same power as Christians and blacks to "run to court" when a public business discriminated against them (based on sexual orientation, religion, or race).
Do you understand that?


Moreover, the 14th amendment specifically avoids specifying race in the relevant portion of the 14th amendment. It never specifies one characteristic, whereby you want to pretend that explicit choice to avoid specifying the one characteristic somehow means that only one characteristic is specified.


Finally, there is a final relevant issue you have failed to address.
The Civil Rights Act covers Christians as well. The Civil Rights Act was passed by people who were predominantly Christian, choosing to ensure they were protected by the Civil Rights Act just like blacks were covered.
Can I mindlessly claim (just as you did) that Christians "detest people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations"?
 
Last edited:
Dec 2013
33,465
19,268
Beware of watermelons
#36
:rolleyes:
I think the real problem is that some people haven't been paying attention.

Look back through the various preceding elections. The Repubs have consistently put up at least one presidential candidate who has been more effective at appealing to the more "base" elements within their party.
This was the first nomination process where that candidate actually succeeded in winning the nomination.

Democrats => warhawks...
Since 1900, 35 conflicts have been launched by Republican administrations compared to 23 by Democrats, with 10 (out of 12) GOP presidents launching one or more conflicts, compared to 8 (out of 8) Democrats.​
Republicans vs Democrats in Launching Wars: We Have the Numbers

Republicans & free speech. Your definition of "free speech" does not match the "standard" meaning so what you mean by this statement is not understood.

"Women have penises and men can have periods." - Some people obviously don't understand "transgender". They've always been there.

...and people defend the insanity w/ seemingly straight faces.

Definitely clownworld


But hey it's illegal to get a plastic straw in callifornia but knowingly give someone AIDS... no big deal.... clownworld.
 
Nov 2005
8,361
2,880
California
#37
...and people defend the insanity w/ seemingly straight faces.
Ah.
I wasn't sure if you were typing things laughing trollishly or with a blank stare...
Blank stare it is then...


Definitely clownworld
Things Sabcat doesn't like => "clownworld". :rolleyes:


But hey it's illegal to get a plastic straw in callifornia but knowingly give someone AIDS... no big deal.... clownworld.
Do you even bother to research things or are you purposefully trying to give me easy items to demonstrate your ignorance?
Criminal transmission of HIV in the United States - Wikipedia
 
Jul 2015
2,515
1,103
USA
#39
In many ways, your response is just profoundly ignorant and missing the reality of the situation.

The reality of the situation is, the Equal Rights Amendment was rejected by the American People, but would have, if adopted, granted by its second section a power to Congress “to enforce, by appropriate legislation” what the Equality Act attempts to do without this authorization in our Constitution.

Why is this reality so difficult for you to understand? Is reality not your friend?

JWK


The Equality Act attempts to pass legislation authorized under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, is a usurpation of power not granted.
 
Feb 2019
667
223
nunya
#40
Tolerant? Why is the sexual deviant crowd running to court when someone does not want to do business with them? Why does our sexual deviant crowd detest people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?


JWK


Do you really want single payer, meaning government run, healthcare? Move into public housing [the projects in East Harlem or the South Bronx], live there for a year, and then make your decision about government run healthcare.
Because that is homophobic and not what this country is about. That is why they go to court.
 

Similar Discussions