Arizona's new anti-gay law.

[Ben Kenobi]

A point about single mothers? Sure. How does your bigotry toward homosexuals make things any better? It doesn't. Go **** yourself. You're like a cockroach that was accidentally born in a human shell for some reason.

How does the fact that economically, children do better living in a home with their married mother and father count as bigotry? It's pretty clear. The number one association with poverty is being born in a home outside of wedlock.

I find it telling that the advocates of social progress utilize the epithets of the past.

[100% Wolf]

How does the fact that economically, children do better living in a home with their married mother and father count as bigotry? It's pretty clear. The number one association with poverty is being born in a home outside of wedlock.

I find it telling that the advocates of social progress utilize the epithets of the past.

Because this is only true if you compare married couples as a group to single parents as a group.
Duh.
It has nothing to do with gay couples.
**** off.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because this is only true if you compare married couples as a group to single parents as a group.

Which is the entire point of making this comparison in the first place.

It has nothing to do with gay couples.

Yet, you yourself admitted that the latter category includes gay couples. Ergo, it stands to reason that yes, this argument is in fact applicable.

[100% Wolf]

Show me the statistics for gay couples alone and stop conflating them with single parents you dishonest piece of shit.

[Ben Kenobi]

Show me the statistics for gay couples alone and stop conflating them with single parents you dishonest piece of ****.

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Albelda-Badgett-Schneebaum-Gates-LGB-Poverty-Report-March-2009.pdf

Children in gay and lesbian couple households have poverty rates twice those of children in
heterosexual married couple households

There you go.

[100% Wolf]

The social and policy context of LGB life provides many reasons to think that LGB people are at least as likely and perhaps more likely to experience poverty as are heterosexual people: vulnerability to employment discrimination, lack of access to marriage, higher rates of being uninsured, less family support, or family conflict over coming out. All of those situations could increase the likelihood of poverty among LGB people.

Nice work, bigots. First make gay people poor, then claim homosexuality is bad because it makes people poor.

Ben Kenobi truly is scum

[Aeson]

It is impossible for me to know whether Ben is a bot or not. Thus it's impossible for me to discriminate against him by banning him for being a bot ... so I can just ban him for being bot? Is this really the logic you want to promote Ben?

[Aeson]

As for your puns about cigarettes, I'll just take it as an admission of defeat on the issue, since you clearly don't want to address it in context.

[Aeson]

The CRA has implications on marriage. It doesn't mean talking about CRA means that we should bring up marriage necessarily. Even if it does require bringing up marriage, it's only in the context that it's been applied so far, which is that interracial marriage should be allowed.

If you are blaming the destruction of the family on interracial marriage, please feel free to confirm that you think whites and blacks marrying is a bad thing.

[Sava]

so I can just ban him for being bot?

It's like sending Al Capone to prison for tax evasion.

Can bots die of syphilis?

[Ben Kenobi]

First make gay people poor, then claim homosexuality is bad because it makes people poor.

Glad to see you admit you are wrong. Fastest way to poverty is family breakup.

[100% Wolf]

It's like sending Al Capone to prison for tax evasion.

Can bots die of syphilis?

If there was a God, Ben probably would.

[Ben Kenobi]

Is this really the logic you want to promote Ben?

We've had trials before based on a lack of factual evidence. In Salem. This is no different. You're going to prosecute someone merely based on the word of someone else. That's contrary to the 4th Amendment right there.

I'll just take it as an admission of defeat on the issue, since you clearly don't want to address it in context.

So you want people driven out of business for using a slur? Interesting. That's actually contrary to the 1st Amendment.

Citizens have the right to use slurs in public.

It's become abundantly clear that you don't believe in the first amendment.

The CRA has implications on marriage.

Please show me where it says anything about marriage.

It doesn't mean talking about CRA means that we should bring up marriage necessarily.

Quite the contrary. The Civil Rights Act says nothing about it.

Even if it does require bringing up marriage, it's only in the context that it's been applied so far, which is that interracial marriage should be allowed.

Again - the Civil Rights Act says nothing about it. Neither does the 14th Amendment. So far, nothing you've stated is actually backed up in the law. The best you've been able to do is dig up one decision which found a limited duty on the part of a certain class of private business owner. Even then, it's debatable that it has anything to do with interstate commerce whatsoever. I could write reams, but I'm willing to bet one of the libertarians here will have something to say about abuse of the interstate commerce clause.

You also dodged my question. What exactly does a Christian baker have to do with 'interstate commerce'. There is simply no lack of bakers willing to perform this task, ergo, it's open and shut. 1st amendment rights to freedom of religion, expression and association prevail.

If you are blaming the destruction of the family on interracial marriage, please feel free to confirm that you think whites and blacks marrying is a bad thing.

I'll happily answer if you're willing to put my answer in your sig.

[Aeson]

We've had trials before based on a lack of factual evidence. In Salem. This is no different. You're going to prosecute someone merely based on the word of someone else. That's contrary to the 4th Amendment right there.

a) the example wasn't anyone's word ... it was the lack of evidence to the contrary
b) it was an example perfectly analogous to something you had just said ... specifically to highlight how absurd what you just said was
c) thanks for trying to prove how absurd your position is, even if you did it in a way that makes absolutely no sense itself

So you want people driven out of business for using a slur?

You seem confused. using a slur isn't the reason it's against the law. In the hypothetical the slur only proves that not serving the people was because of an intent which is specifically against the law.

As for what I want, I wouldn't want to see people driven out of business by government for using a slur. I wouldn't mind (and probably would cheer for) seeing someone using a slur at their customers getting their business boycotted and having to close their business though.

It's become abundantly clear that you don't believe in the first amendment.

I certainly don't think it says what you claim it says. I also don't think it overrides all other rights in all cases. I'm glad SCOTUS agrees with me and disagrees with you about those two issues.

Please show me where it says anything about marriage.

Please learn the meaning of the word "implications".

But thanks for so vehemently attacking your reasoning for bringing the topic of marriage into this discussion. It definitely was a strawman on your part. (Even if not for the reasons you claim it's not topical.)

You also dodged my question. What exactly does a Christian baker have to do with 'interstate commerce'.

I had no idea you asked me this. Sorry.

As for the question ... I haven't claimed a Christian baker has anything to do with interstate commerce. As I've explicitly stated in this thread already, I don't care about a baker. I care about the law this thread is about and the absurd implications it can have in specific circumstances (also explicitly noted).

I'll happily answer if you're willing to put my answer in your sig.

I'll happily put your answer in my sig if you promise to never post anything stupid or bigoted (as judged by me) again.

[molly bloom]

Glad to see you admit you are wrong. Fastest way to poverty is family breakup.

Is it ? How about downsizing under Conservative governments ? That put millions of people out of work in the 1980s .