- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Listen dick, I have not mentioned churches/straight couples, that's your domain...
Yes women should be able to be women and men, men. Now if you believe this, you would have to acknowledge that religious institutions do not need to provide services to anyone that go against their beliefs...
another failed insult, emotions run high when people cant support their posts
this is just more proof you cant back up the lies you posted
also please define what a religious institution is? is a church not one?
Gawd, you're so dumb...
translation: you got nothing
again when you are ready to stay on topic and be civil all you have to do is support your claims with links and or facts.
My posts stand as is, as do yours. The difference is that mine are more entertaining...
Shoo fly...
State laws should not not be subject to federal judicial review...
translation: your post failed and churches are in fact religious institutes :shrug:
i agree 100% your posts are VERY entertaining
Just like Roe v Wade . . . it'll never end.
its cute you think this defleciton would fool anybodyInstitutions, not institutes. Now, translate yourself into oblivion, and do not attempt to translate my posts...
Yes women should be able to be women and men, men. Now if you believe this, you would have to acknowledge that religious institutions do not need to provide services to anyone that go against their beliefs...
They should when they violate the US Constitution.
Or is it ok for a state to ban guns completely?
They should when they violate the US Constitution.
Under original jurisdiction, the States were not subject to the Constitution. They were allowed to govern themselves...
Under original jurisdiction you could also own a person. DONT CARE.
Equal protection is equal protection. I've described to you the legal situation.
Under original jurisdiction you could also own a person. DONT CARE.
Equal protection is equal protection. I've described to you the legal situation.
Moderator's Warning: |
No, you haven't explained your position at all. You have been too focused on mine...
Gender based classification requires an important state interest be served by the law in a manner substantially related to that interest.
Proponents of SSM bans have failed to meet this test.
Therefore, SSM bans are unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.
Yep, all FOUR of them, out of fifty. Math not your strong suit?There was no federal court case in the states that saw states approve SSCM at the general election ballot box (Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington).AFTER the federal courts overturned their original will. But nice try.Four individual states. And numerous legislatures.
>>>>
Just like Roe v Wade . . . it'll never end.
He's not the one obsessed who starts daily threads on the subject covering the same ground over and over again. Look for the source of the whine elsewhere.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?