https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bu...ted_States

---

Tolerating a same sex marriage doesn't mean you need to endorse it or participate in it. Stop playing the persecution card. And I love your point that being a Richard and evicting people based on color or creed, though immoral, should be a right of the property owner. You should put that on your Tinder profile.

You're tHinking of the old tolerance. The new tolerance means that you must sell them your cake, photography skills, flowers, rent them your assembly hall, etc. In other words, more than tolerate you must accept and participate or the government will fine you out of business and the Tolerance Brigade will picket you and threaten you and your associates with death.


And why should anyone have to conform to someone else's notion of morality to exercise ownership rights? Isn't that what these people have been pushing all along? We're here, we're queer, etc.? Your notions of morality are irrelevant to us, but you damn well better concede to our notions of morality OR ELSE!


And being a Richard is a right. We're here, we don't care about you, leave us alone. But no, you will be made to conform, the hell with what you think or believe, you're wrong and we're right so shut up and sing.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Like Obergefell v. Hodges?

 

 

:thumbsup:

 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bu...ted_States

 

<i><b>Obergefell v. Hodges</b></i>, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the <a class="" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights_in_the_United_States' title="Fundamental rights in the United States">fundamental right</a> to marry is guaranteed to <a class="" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_couple' title="Same-sex couple">same-sex couples</a> by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause<span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;"> of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span>.

 

This is your final answer of a court case, opinion and result on appeal that the 14th amendment is inadequate?  

 

I guess that saves me a trip to the burn unit bourd...

 

Still waiting to hear about the blind lady.  

---

Still waiting to hear about the blind lady.  

She died. Old age. And boredom.

---

deflection...  okay

---

deflection...  okay

You inquired about the fate of the old lady. I passed along the sad news. In lieu of flowers, her family is asking for donations in her name to be made to Planned Parenthood.

---

childish deflection...  even better.

---

2.)In the event that a psychological malady occurs that would cause irrevocable harm to the person stricken by it should we as a society commit resources and personnel to facilitate that persons delusions. What if someone identified as being blind? Should we help them pour drano in their eyes to accommodate them?

Ugh. The old lady. This is the sticking point of brilliance you wanted me to answer to? As you would have guessed.. I am not going to say a person can not "identify" as blind. This argument truly makes no sense. So a person who can really see has a psychological condition which tells them that the rods and cones in their eyes are not actually seeing the things their brain registers? I have never heard of such a thing. Would I pour Drano in their eyes to fulfill this impossible delusion? Probably not. Maybe I would take some action to make them flinch to prove that I know that they are not truly blind. Again, this is not something that I have ever heard of occurring in the real world unlike the millions of examples of people who identify as transgender or homosexual which I can reference. Based on your question, should I assume you think they are making up their sexual orientation or gender identification? Or is your argument that it is homosexuality and transgender is a mental sickness which is treatable? If your answer to either of these is yes, you would be wrong.


And it is also pretty scary that we can do this dance for weeks where post by post I prove that the intentions of the 14th Amendment alone were not adequate enough to provide the equal protection of minority classes, yet you keep going back to that dry well to claim it does.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Ugh. The old lady. This is the sticking point of brilliance you wanted me to answer to? As you would have guessed.. I am not going to say a person can not "identify" as blind. This argument truly makes no sense. So a person who can really see has a psychological condition which tells them that the rods and cones in their eyes are not actually seeing the things their brain registers? I have never heard of such a thing. Would I pour Drano in their eyes to fulfill this impossible delusion? Probably not. Maybe I would take some action to make them flinch to prove that I know that they are not truly blind. Again, this is not something that I have ever heard of occurring in the real world unlike the millions of examples of people who identify as transgender or homosexual which I can reference. Based on your question, should I assume you think they are making up their sexual orientation or gender identification? Or is your argument that it is homosexuality and transgender is a mental sickness which is treatable? If your answer to either of these is yes, you would be wrong.


And it is also pretty scary that we can do this dance for weeks where post by post I prove that the intentions of the 14th Amendment alone were not adequate enough to provide the equal protection of minority classes, yet you keep going back to that dry well to claim it does.

quote


When a certain kind of special is shown to be an even bigger kind of special they try to drag you down to their level. Or they just spew a bunch of hateful speech at you because they have no reasonable response. This one is a lost cause. Good try though.

---

childish deflection...  even better.

Ask a stupid question...

---

Ugh. The old lady. This is the sticking point of brilliance you wanted me to answer to? As you would have guessed.. I am not going to say a person can not "identify" as blind. This argument truly makes no sense. So a person who can really see has a psychological condition which tells them that the rods and cones in their eyes are not actually seeing the things their brain registers? I have never heard of such a thing. Would I pour Drano in their eyes to fulfill this impossible delusion? Probably not. Maybe I would take some action to make them flinch to prove that I know that they are not truly blind. Again, this is not something that I have ever heard of occurring in the real world unlike the millions of examples of people who identify as transgender or homosexual which I can reference. Based on your question, should I assume you think they are making up their sexual orientation or gender identification? Or is your argument that it is homosexuality and transgender is a mental sickness which is treatable? If your answer to either of these is yes, you would be wrong.


And it is also pretty scary that we can do this dance for weeks where post by post I prove that the intentions of the 14th Amendment alone were not adequate enough to provide the equal protection of minority classes, yet you keep going back to that dry well to claim it does.

 

No sir you didn't.  You regurgitated the same talking points.  I took the time to answer your posts in detail citing historical context and the legislative and judicial record.  All i got back was "well if it took 100 years" leaving out the role of government, the limitations of government, and the legal history of those 100 years.  

 

I asked for evidence to justify your anecdote about your friend.  In a discussion about legal protections details and court findings matter, specifically in an action of the state (eviction).   You didn't provide that.  I asked for court cases and citations to back up the idea that at current the mechanisms to enforce the 14th amendment are inadequate.  You cite the very court case i pointed out that demonstrates the judiciary has and has had (since the passing of the 14th amendment) the ability to void or amend any legal arrangement (with the exception of some collective bargaining agreements) or institution that doesn't comply with the equal protection clause or that of substantive due process.  

 

I find the fact that you can be so brazen yet demonstrate no in depth ability to explain or defend your position to be scary.  

 

As for the poor blind woman,  huh.  I am suprised that you are not touting the plight of the trans-abled community.  They are just disabled people trapped in healthy bodies.  

---

quote


When a certain kind of special is shown to be an even bigger kind of special they try to drag you down to their level. Or they just spew a bunch of hateful speech at you because they have no reasonable response. This one is a lost cause. Good try though.

 

While i don't think that being delusional should be a basis for discrimination, i can still advise that you seek out help for the condition.  I type because i care.

---