Send a Message
to lides

Comments

16,529

Joined

Jan 29, 2008

Badges

lides Profile

Recent Posts

Gay/Lesbian

Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage

Sorry, kiddo, I'm not the one advancing the ionept notion that fellow citizens should be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law because they are incapable of procreation. Applying your idiotic standard, the elderly, infertile, and those who have undergone hysterectomies or vasectomies would similarly be second class citizens unable to legally marry. Your assertion is both childish and inept.  (15 hrs ago | post #4195)

Gay/Lesbian

Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage

You simply reaffirm that you are a bigoted idiot who doesn't understand that procreation is neither a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of legal marriage. Can you come up with a big boy (girl?) argument, or are you just an idiot?  (16 hrs ago | post #4193)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

The US Constitution. And so long as they are persons, and I assure you homosexuals are, they are constitutionally entitled to equality under the law. The reality remains, DisRespect, that you are utterly incapable of presenting a well reasoned and detailed explanation of how providing the service in any way infringes upon the baker's rights. Your difficulty in doing so merely underscores that the courts were correct in their rulings, and providing the service in no way infringes upon the rights of the baker.  (16 hrs ago | post #3160)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

No, DisRespect, I advocate him not being able to project his religious moral views onto his customers in violation of their rights. Preventing him from discriminating on the basis of his religious moral views in no way infringes upon any of his rights. He is being asked to provide a service to make a baked good. He isn't being asked to sanctify the ceremony where the baked good will be consumed, he isn't being asked to preside over the ceremony, he isn't being asked to provide a written endorsement of the union, he isn't being asked to marry someone of the same sex, he isn't being prevented from going to a religious service, he's being asked to bake a cake. Get a grip kiddoThe reality is that providing a cake to a same sex couples does not impact his views on marriage. He may still believe that marriage is between a husband and wifeThe reality remains that there is a difference between religious and civil marriage, and you are advocating for the infringement of the free exercise of religion by allowing vendors to place religious tests in order to avail one's self of their services. If you don't see why such a state is dangerous, and could quite frankly backfire on you in the most hysterical of ways, then you are a dim bulb indeedIt is just a cake. That you are trying to grant a ministerial status to it is absolutely hysterical. The baker isn't a cleric, he's a baker.  (16 hrs ago | post #3159)

Gay/Lesbian

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

Ergo, greater. Learn to count, Frankie. once you can do that, you can begin to work on being on topic.  (16 hrs ago | post #173)

Gay/Lesbian

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

Frankie, if there are two groups of people, and group A consists of two people, and group B consists of three or more, which group has more people? Learn to count, Frankie.  (16 hrs ago | post #171)

Gay/Lesbian

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

I choose to be on topic, you choose to be an idiot. It definitely calls your judgment into question, Frankie. Did you have anything on topic to say? A comment about Baker v Nelson, and its validity, or lack thereof? Personally, I think since it became precent by mandatory appeal and dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, it was never a terribly strong precedent; and arguably, since the court has heard a same sex marriage case in the intervening years, and ruled in favor of the same sex couple, that there now exists a substantial federal question is undeniable. Tell me, Frankie, are you capable of addressing the actual topic? Or are you just a one trick pony who can't count?  (17 hrs ago | post #170)

Gay/Lesbian

Church firing stirs up controversy over same-sex marriage

Of course, not all straight people are bigoted idiots, like Wondering.  (17 hrs ago | post #19)

Gay/Lesbian

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

Frankie, you are a troll, and you are off topic. The topic of this thread is not your beloved (and made up) marriage freedom, but rather same sex marriage. That is specifically the subject of Baker v Nelson. Do try to keep up. While you are at it, you might learn to count and come to grips with the meaning of the word equal. Or, you could keep being an idiot and a troll. The choice is yours.  (17 hrs ago | post #167)

Gay/Lesbian

Gay marriage

Ki Mare, Are homosexuals people? Can you indicate a single compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples equality under the law to marry? The reality remains that using your inept rationalization, many straight couples would be denied the ability to legally marry. Procreation is neither a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of legal marriage. Infertile couples regularly marry. Elderly couples beyond menopause legally marry. Applying your standard all of these would be barred from legal marriage. You see, your rhetoric has no basis in fact, law, or reason. It is merely an attempt to rationalize an argument that is utterly devoid of factual basis. Would you care to attempt a big boy argument?  (Thursday | post #59431)

Gay/Lesbian

Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage

Frankie, I'm not the one who continually advances irrelevant rhetoric. You are disingenuous. You are a liar. You cannot count. And on the whole, you are something of an imbecile.  (Thursday | post #4182)

Gay/Lesbian

Biggest Gay Lies

No, Frankie, you have reiterated across a range of forums that you are an imbecile. Ergo it is a big lie to say you are intelligent.  (Thursday | post #1815)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

This isn't even difficult. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." US Constitution, 1st Amendment. http://www.law.cor nell.edu/constitut ion/first_amendmen t By definition, if we value religious freedom, it is necessary that a secular government be maintained, as any law respecting the establishment of any one religion does so to the detriment of all others. Ergo, the secular is superior to the religious in order to ensure that the individual may choose whatever religion they desire to follow.  (Thursday | post #3148)

Gay/Lesbian

Gay marriage

Of course, the topic is "Gay Marriage", and you are off topic. Grow a clue, Frankie. This is why I call you an idiot. You can't even read the title of the topic. Perhaps we can add reading comprehension to your list of failures, right after countingWell, in that case there is no problemFrankie, for three or more people to marry is not to seek equality under the law. Were you not an idiot, you would realize that. Of course, if you weren't an idiot, you would realize that you are once again off topicNo, Frankie, equal means equal. Is three greater than, less than, or equal to two? You are a moron, FrankieFrankie, polygamists don't seek equality. they seek a new protection for a greater number of people. Learn to count, moronFrankie, they have equality under the law to marry. Seeking to marry more than one person, in addition to being illegal in every state in the union, is not seeking equality. Learn to count, moronI hate no one, Frankie. I can simply count, and understand what equal is. I can also make an on topic argument. Apparently you are too stupid do do or understand any of the above.  (Thursday | post #59427)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

No, I've never said anything remotely to this effect. I can understand why you would want to twist my words into this configuration because it makes your patently absurd argument seem more valid. Simply put, it isn't. Anti-discriminatio n laws do not violate the religious freedom or free speech of business owners who believe differently from their patrons. Providing a cake for someone with differing beliefs doesn't violate any right of the business owner. Only a fool would claim that it did. Your argument lost in court, because it is lacking in rational basis. Your argument lost on appeal, because it is lacking in rational basis. Your argument simply has no roots in reality. Providing a wedding cake for a black couples doesn't violate the baker's rights. Providing a wedding cake for an interracial couple does not violate the baker's rights. Providing a wedding cake for a Jewish couple does not violate the baker's rights. Providing a wedding cake for a Muslim couple does not violate the baker's rights. Providing a wedding cake for a Gay couple does not violate the baker's rights.  (Thursday | post #3147)

Q & A with lides

Headline:

No Headline available

Hometown:

Defiance, Ohio

Neighborhood:

brow

Local Favorites:

Patrick's, The Lantern, Viva, Barrington Brewery

I Belong To:

The Human Race

When I'm Not on Topix:

I am elsewhere

Read My Forum Posts Because:

Read them or not, my opinion is my own.

I'm Listening To:

Tosca

Read This Book:

It Can Happen Here

Favorite Things:

brown paper packages tied up with strings

I Believe In:

equality