Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, June 15, 2020

The court said the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

www.axios.com

...Why it matters: The 6-3 opinion marks a huge win for LGBT rights in a court with a clear conservative tilt. It was authored by conservative justice Neil Gorsuch, who was joined by the court's more liberal and swing members.

- Title VII explicitly prohibits discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin," but it did not specifically name sexual orientation or gender identity as protected classes.

What they're saying: "An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex," Gorsuch wrote.

- "Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."

- "Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. ... But the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands."

- "When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it's no contest. Only the written word is law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit."...


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-06-15 10:47 AM | Reply

What is shocking is that this is shocking or surprising to so many Americans.

We hold these Truths to be self evident. All Men are created equal...

My only worry is where will all the GOP bigots pee now that the Toilet Monsters are all legal and stuff. They will be in every bathroom trolling for our kids now.

#2 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-06-15 11:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I have worked with LGBT people before and as long as they can do the job I don't care about their lifestyle. Same applies to everyone, as long as they can do their jobs. But if they couldn't perform after additional training and or counseling they were let go and I had ample documentation as backup, no matter their lifestyle or skin color.

#3 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2020-06-15 11:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's how it should be. However people will fire or discharge people solely because of sexual orientation or skin color. This needed to be guaranteed by SCOTUS to ensure it.

#4 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-06-15 11:22 AM | Reply

Seems like a no brainer to me, but maybe I'm looking at too high a level.

What case did the three dissenting opinions make?

#5 | Posted by brass30 at 2020-06-15 11:27 AM | Reply

-Seems like a no brainer to me,

Well, it's the supreme court reading lower court rulings and making determinations from the specifics of this case.

It's never that simple.

BTW, who were the 3 dissenting votes?

#6 | Posted by eberly at 2020-06-15 11:33 AM | Reply

Roberts court comes out in favor of a fairness issue, that's great, but the SC is a political body. This could have been done because now that they have good decision not they will feel freer to make two bad ones. DACA and Obamacare. I will be totally shocked if we win on those two. They should also review their decision on the Voting Rights act. It is just undemcratic what Republican gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc. is doing to our democracy.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2020-06-15 11:35 AM | Reply

@# ... I have worked with LGBT people before and as long as they can do the job I don't care about their lifestyle. ...

I agree, though I would use slightly different wording...

"I have worked with LGBT people before and as long as they do the job I don't care about their lifestyle."

#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-06-15 11:53 AM | Reply

@#5 ... Seems like a no brainer to me ...

From what I've read over the past couple of years, the anti-gay people (e.g., Pres Trump and many of his supporters) have been waiting eagerly for this case to make it to the Supreme Court, given the current make-up of the Court.


#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-06-15 11:55 AM | Reply

BTW, who were the 3 dissenting votes?

Without even reading the decision, I'm gonna say Alito, Kavanaugh and Thomas. Who else would you count on to champion a boot stamping on a human face - forever.

#10 | Posted by censored at 2020-06-15 12:01 PM | Reply

What I'm waiting for is a case forcing churches to allow same sex weddings if the church is open to the general public but will not permit those weddings be held in the sanctuary.

What does Freedom of Religion include more specifically?

#11 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-06-15 12:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

In other SCOTUS news...

Gun-Rights Appeals Turned Away by U.S. Supreme Court
www.bloomberg.com

...The U.S. Supreme Court turned away 10 appeals that sought to broaden constitutional firearm protections, rejecting calls for rights to own a semi-automatic assault rifle and carry a handgun in public.

The rebuffs are a blow to the gun-rights movement, which has been trying for a decade to get the court to take up a major new Second Amendment case. They have been banking on Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who replaced the swing vote Anthony Kennedy in 2018, to make the court more assertive on the issue....


#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-06-15 12:04 PM | Reply

Would this be used as a way to shut churches down to the general public?

#13 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-06-15 12:05 PM | Reply

Well, it's the supreme court reading lower court rulings and making determinations from the specifics of this case.

It's never that simple

You should read the opinion. Despite all the history, the analysis of the fundamental question is remarkably simple and really doesn't turn on the specifics at all.

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2020-06-15 12:10 PM | Reply

Would this be used as a way to shut churches down to the general public?

This is about workplace discrimination, so you can stop with the self-hating hyperventilation.

#15 | Posted by JOE at 2020-06-15 12:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

@#14 ... the analysis of the fundamental question is remarkably simple ..

Agreed.

justice Gorsuch wrote a simple and concise explanation of the rationale behind, and basis for, the decision.

#16 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-06-15 12:18 PM | Reply

Joe,

I am more thinking along the lines of Christian hating liberals who use gay rights as an excuse for their hatred.

As of late we've seen multiple cases where businesses have been denied the right to not perform a specific service even though they do not discriminate against gays in general who want something not related to a wedding.

It's really only a matter of time before a gay couple takes on a church out of principle.

Can churches be forced to change their doctrine or must close to the general public?

#17 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-06-15 12:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

As of late we've seen multiple cases where businesses have been denied the right to not perform a specific service even though they do not discriminate against gays in general who want something not related to a wedding.

SCOTUS already said a private business can refuse to serve gays so i don't really know what you're on about.

Can churches be forced to change their doctrine or must close to the general public?

Why are you asking that question in a thread about employment discrimination?

#18 | Posted by JOE at 2020-06-15 12:21 PM | Reply

From what I've read over the past couple of years, the anti-gay people (e.g., Pres Trump and many of his supporters) have been waiting eagerly for this case to make it to the Supreme Court, given the current make-up of the Court.

#9 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2020-06-15 11:55 AM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

Anti gay? But I'm sure what you read was impartial.

#19 | Posted by fishpaw at 2020-06-15 12:22 PM | Reply

But the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands."

So now we are deciding court cases based on the perceived "drafter's imagination"..

Wow.

#20 | Posted by boaz at 2020-06-15 12:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#20 No, that's the exact opposite of what happened here, moron.

The dissenters claimed Congress could never have imagined the law they passed would be used in this way. It was the majority who said their imagination doesn't matter.

Try reading, if you're capable of that.

#21 | Posted by JOE at 2020-06-15 12:25 PM | Reply

Can churches be forced to change their doctrine or must close to the general public?

#17 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Why is equality under the law so complicated for some people?

Only Gawd knows.

#22 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-06-15 12:27 PM | Reply

It was the majority who said their imagination doesn't matter.

But they are saying they have made a decision based on "intent" of someone who isnt here anymore.

I can read. I know what it said..

Stop insulting people. I didnt insult you. Stay on the topic.

#23 | Posted by boaz at 2020-06-15 12:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Joe,

"Why are you asking that question in a thread about employment discrimination?"

Referring to Lamps comment that this case has been a long time coming and people were waiting on a decision.

If people can work Trump into this thread who had no connection, I can certainly bring in a another gay related issue that will be headed to the Supreme Court.

#24 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-06-15 12:40 PM | Reply

@#19 ... But I'm sure what you read was impartial. ...

The articles were mostly on right-wing news sites, sometimes quoting Pres Trump on the topic.

#25 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-06-15 12:44 PM | Reply

@#22 ... Why is equality under the law so complicated for some people? ...

Selective reading of the Bible by some people?

#26 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-06-15 12:46 PM | Reply

If people can work Trump into this thread who had no connection, I can certainly bring in a another gay related issue that will be headed to the Supreme Court.

Trump is not connected?

Did you somehow miss this?

Trump Administration Erases Transgender Civil Rights Protections in Health Care

Anyway if he wasn't he will be. Everything is about Trump in the world according to Trump. Don't think he won't be tweeting something "nasty" about transgenders any second.

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-06-15 12:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Btw billjohnson,

This SCOTUS ruling negates Trumpy's attempt to roll back transgender civil rights protections in healthcare.

I bet that makes a few deplorables mad, too.

#28 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-06-15 12:56 PM | Reply

But they are saying they have made a decision based on "intent" of someone who isnt here anymore.

Boaz, this is the complete opposite of what that sentence is saying. Gorsuch says that the people who wrote this amendment could NOT have imagined (nor intended) that the law would be used this way, BUT the LETTER of the law says that it SHOULD be used this way. It has NOTHING to do with what the people who wrote the amendment imagined or anticipated but STRICTLY what was WRITTEN.

#29 | Posted by dylanfan at 2020-06-15 01:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

#29,

It still doesnt sound right.

#30 | Posted by boaz at 2020-06-15 01:10 PM | Reply

It probably doesn't sound right because you disagree with it. But that doesn't mean you can misinterpret what is written in the decision. Furthermore, based on that sentence alone, it sounds like Gorsuch was applying a literalist interpretation of the amendment, something that Conservatives like yourself often advocate for.

#31 | Posted by dylanfan at 2020-06-15 01:22 PM | Reply

But they are saying they have made a decision based on "intent" of someone who isnt here anymore.

No, that isn't what they said. At all. So when i told you to read, it's because your comment makes it very clear that you either didn't read the opinion at all, or that you have 100% misunderstood it.

The dissenters (Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh) are the ones who claimed that Title VII should not apply to discrimination against homosexuals and trans people because of what they perceived the "intent" and "imagination" of the legislators who passed it to be.

It was the majority (Gorsuch, Roberts, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan) who said the perceived intent and imaginative limits of the legislators who passed the law was irrelevant. So when you say "So now we are deciding court cases based on the perceived "drafter's imagination," you are applying the rationale of the losing side of this case to the winning side.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2020-06-15 01:34 PM | Reply

#31,

I understand Dylanfan, and I'm actually not disagreeing with the decision.

#33 | Posted by boaz at 2020-06-15 01:34 PM | Reply

It still doesnt sound right.

Lmao.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2020-06-15 01:36 PM | Reply

The dissenters (Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh) are the ones who claimed that Title VII should not apply to discrimination against homosexuals and trans people because of what they perceived the "intent" and "imagination" of the legislators who passed it to be.

I agree with that. It makes sense.

I think gays and trans people need their own special drawn up law.

#35 | Posted by boaz at 2020-06-15 01:36 PM | Reply

So you like the argument based on imagination.

How does that reconcile with your #20?

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2020-06-15 01:40 PM | Reply

I think gays and trans people need their own special drawn up law.

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on "sex." If you discriminate against a male employee because they are attracted to men, that discrimination is inextricably linked to their sex, because you would not discriminate against a female employee for being attracted to men.

If Congress did not intend for their law to cover this scenario, they should have used more precise language and written exceptions. YOU want judicial activists to write exceptions to a law that don't exist. That is a subversion of democracy.

#37 | Posted by JOE at 2020-06-15 01:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

finally...a decision in the right (left) direction...
Bravo SCOTUS... This will make a few gay friends of
mine v. happy...

#38 | Posted by earthmuse at 2020-06-15 02:01 PM | Reply

I think gays and trans people need their own special drawn up law.

#35 | POSTED BY BOAZ

I am sure that the Republican controlled Senate would get right on that. But they are busy still deciding whether lynchings are bad.

#39 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-06-15 02:43 PM | Reply

If it were up to Boaz, he and all black Americans would still be slaves working on plantations.

Boaz is a Republican because he's a self loathing black man.

#40 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-06-15 02:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Understood, Boaz. It definitely sounded like you disagreed with the decision. My apologies if I misinterpreted.

#41 | Posted by dylanfan at 2020-06-15 02:49 PM | Reply

#40-
I disagree with Boaz I'm pretty much everything (often vehemently) and do also find it baffling that he seems to vote against his own self-interest, but this type of race baiting is uncalled for.

#42 | Posted by dylanfan at 2020-06-15 02:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

With this ruling, which basically make's Trump's Executive Order allowing healthcare workers and organizations to discriminate agasint transgender people moot. And to add insult onto injury, his handpicked justice for the seat that Obama was illegally prevented from filling, Neal Gorsuch, wrote the majority opinion.

And then the court wouldn't even take-up the sanctuary city' case, and there, BOTH of his appointees, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, agreed not to review the lower court's position.

June is not looking good for Trump when it comes to the Supreme Court.

OCU

#43 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-06-15 02:52 PM | Reply

Btw billjohnson,

This SCOTUS ruling negates Trumpy's attempt to roll back transgender civil rights protections in healthcare.

BillJohnson is furious with this decision. If it were up to him, homosexuals would be forced to stay hidden in the shadows and would be killed as soon as they came out.

BillJohnson is a Republican because he's a self loathing homosexual man.

#44 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-06-15 02:52 PM | Reply

I disagree with Boaz

I didn't accuse you of otherwise.

but this type of race baiting is uncalled for.
#42 | POSTED BY DYLANFAN

This isn't race baiting. I've been having discussions with Boaz about race since 2008.

Boaz has a very very, extremely, low opinion of black people. He hates them. He considers himself better than other black Americans.

#45 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-06-15 02:57 PM | Reply

Fair enough. I still think it's unnecessary, but I get your point and have seen those trends also. I may not post much, but I am on here almost daily. Personally, I think it's just as easy to point out the idiocy of most of his posts without invoking race. Likewise with Bill Johnson. But I completely understand your desire to call out perceived hypocrisy.

#46 | Posted by dylanfan at 2020-06-15 03:05 PM | Reply

This SCOTUS ruling negates Trumpy's attempt to roll back transgender civil rights protections in healthcare.

No it doesn't.

While based on a similar argument, this case only applies to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (employment discrimination), not to any similar debate over the ACA (discrimination by insurers and healthcare providers).

A case concerning the wording in the ACA would have a different set of facts surrounding what Congress' intent was when it passed the ACA. This case would certainly be cited, but to say it negates anything for the time being is quite incorrect.

#47 | Posted by JOE at 2020-06-15 03:10 PM | Reply

I think gays and trans people need their own special drawn up law.
#35 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Ah yes, Boaz really did like it better when Americans were "Separate but Equal."

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-06-15 03:13 PM | Reply

Anti gay? But I'm sure what you read was impartial.
#19 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Was this an anti gay ruling or a pro gay ruling, Fishpaw?

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-06-15 03:25 PM | Reply

This case would certainly be cited, but to say it negates anything for the time being is quite incorrect.

#47 | POSTED BY JOE

It does not negate it immediately. For them what wish to stay on the wrong side of history. But it will be challenged. And they will lose. Now it is just a matter of who and when. If Trumpy wants to take it to the supremes then he can have at it. I am sure he will be very busy. Soon.

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice"

#50 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-06-15 03:32 PM | Reply

Boaz has a very very, extremely, low opinion of black people. He hates them. He considers himself better than other black Americans.

You are wrong on all fronts in that sentence.

Ah yes, Boaz really did like it better when Americans were "Separate but Equal."

And you think blacks do not want their own black utopia? What do you think the "buy from black business only" movement is about? Blacks themselves want separate but equal, but I dont hear you taking them to task.

#51 | Posted by boaz at 2020-06-15 03:33 PM | Reply

Boaz, are you sad you came along so late in life and missed Greenwood?

#52 | Posted by YAV at 2020-06-15 03:43 PM | Reply

And you think blacks do not want their own black utopia? What do you think the "buy from black business only" movement is about? Blacks themselves want separate but equal, but I dont hear you taking them to task.

#51 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2020-06-15 03:33 PM

I know there is a support Black business movement but I don't know of a buy from black businesses only movement. There just isn't enough black run businesses to do it. People should support local businesses whenever possible anyways. The only people speaking about a "utopia" are radicals and not indicative of mainstream society.

#53 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-06-15 03:48 PM | Reply

And you think Americans do not want their own American utopia? What do you think the "buy from American business only" movement is about?

You mad about that too, Boaz?

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-06-15 03:59 PM | Reply

"Boaz has a very very, extremely, low opinion of black people. He hates them. He considers himself better than other black Americans.

You are wrong on all fronts in that sentence."

He is?

Hey Boaz, do 13% of Americans commit 50% of the crime? Yes or no.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-06-15 04:02 PM | Reply

Connie,

"BillJohnson is furious with this decision."

If you're going to discuss me, at least read my posts.

#56 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-06-15 04:05 PM | Reply

Connie....I meant Clown.

Not a good idea to type without your glasses and miss a typo.

#57 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-06-15 04:07 PM | Reply

Can churches be forced to change their doctrine or must close to the general public?
#17 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

I'm fine with forcing churches to comply with our laws.

Are you fine with forcing churches to comply with the law, BillJohnson?

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-06-15 04:29 PM | Reply

#55,

I dont know. You look it up.

www.channel4.com

#59 | Posted by boaz at 2020-06-15 04:41 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

ok...this is my last response to you...ever.

Read the Constitution.

#60 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-06-15 04:53 PM | Reply

Today was not a good day for the Trump administration at the Supreme Court. It had asked the court to review a ruling on CA sanctuary law, denied. It had asked the justices to take up several Second Amendment cases, denied. And a 6-3 court rejected SG's position on LGBTQ rights.

twitter.com

#61 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-06-15 04:53 PM | Reply

I completely understand your desire to call out perceived hypocrisy.
#46 | POSTED BY DYLANFAN

That was where I was going with my comments.

Plus there's some anger behind my posts.

I don't understand why they think it's okay to force other Americans to live second class lives.

I'm pretty sure their own lives suck so much, they find comfort in knowing others have it worse. And they want it to stay that way.

#62 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-06-15 05:07 PM | Reply

Read the Constitution.
#60 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

A better retort would have been "Read the Hobby Lobby decision."
Since it allows a corporation with religious beliefs to ignore the law, while non-believing companies have to adhere to it.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-06-15 05:24 PM | Reply

When Bill Boaz and Jeff are having a tizzy fit. You know it's a good day.

#64 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-06-15 07:38 PM | Reply

Can churches be forced to change their doctrine or must close to the general public?

#17 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Yes, evangelicals should change their doctrine ...

to follow what the namesake of Christianity taught, not rely on obscure verses found the Old Testament or the Apostle Paul, who never knew Christ in His lifetime, which is what their religion preaches, not Christianity.

#65 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2020-06-15 08:02 PM | Reply

Laura,

How am I having a tizzy fit?

#66 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-06-15 08:58 PM | Reply

Every God damned time we in the LGBTQ Community gains rights and protections you are there to screach about the churches being forced to respect and to adhere to what the SCOTUS hands down. It's like you become unhnged and then you throw a tizzy. Every stinking time.

#67 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-06-15 09:26 PM | Reply

Today was a glorious day. I have waited for this for decades.

#68 | Posted by YAV at 2020-06-15 09:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Laura,

There's no point in attempting to explain my viewpoint to you.

#69 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-06-15 09:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#64 I get you making informed posts goes against your posting history but JeffJ has been banned from this site and has not posted on this thread or any other for some time now.

#70 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2020-06-15 09:43 PM | Reply

Laura,

It's obvious you don't read my posts or are interested in any perspective other than your own.

#71 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-06-15 09:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#71 Don't take it personal, apparently she doesn't read any posts, hence the JeffJ rant.

#72 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2020-06-15 09:47 PM | Reply

Gracie kindly kiss my hiney. Your dribble means NOTHING to me.

#73 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-06-15 09:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Well look here, she read a post. Progress. Night all, time to walk my dog.

#74 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2020-06-15 10:01 PM | Reply

#71 - Bill, if you don't mind and get a chance, go here ( drudge.com ) and shoot Jeff an email. He's got a question for you regarding this court case, but can't post here anymore.

#75 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2020-06-15 10:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 1

JeffJ has been banned from this site and has not posted on this thread or any other for some time now.

Didn't he post under the RJM53 username just a few days ago?

#76 | Posted by JOE at 2020-06-16 07:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#76 - that is correct, Joe.

#77 | Posted by YAV at 2020-06-16 07:10 AM | Reply

"It's obvious you don't read my posts or are interested in any perspective other than your own."

On this subject I don't know why she should be obligated or encouraged to consider anybody else's point of view who isn't similarly situated. Especially when that person has demonstrated a consistent opposition to her rights as a human being whatever the supposed justification.

#78 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-06-16 08:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hag,

"On this subject I don't know why she should be obligated or encouraged to consider anybody else's point of view"

Not at all obligated.

In fact Laura can just ignore my posts and never respond to anything I say.

Glad to see Laura is back posting.

#79 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-06-16 08:58 AM | Reply

There's no point in attempting to explain my viewpoint to you.

#69 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

True dat!

Your viewpoint has been tossed into the ash heap of history.

Where it belongs.

#80 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-06-16 09:56 AM | Reply

Franklin Graham on SCOTUS' LGBT rights ruling: Christians should never be forced to hire' LGBT people

deadstate.org

#81 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-06-16 01:14 PM | Reply

BILLJOHNSON,

I decided I should read what you posted upthread.

Just to humor your request.

"If you're going to discuss me, at least read my posts.
#56 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON"

It's just more of the same nonsense. Homosexuals and liberals attacking Christianity. Absolute bullshht.

Homosexuality existed before the time of Christ. And in all his preaching and teaching. He never once mentioned or condemned them.

No. It took Kings and scholars who reinterpreted his words to find a few words then attribute them to anti homosexuality.

You spend too much time making the lives of others worse. If there is a Christ. You're a disappointment to him.

#82 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-06-16 01:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Clown,

Good grief...your post is old worn out stuff.

I will say this.

Each of us are responsible for ourselves.

Don't blame your problems on me.

#83 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-06-16 05:06 PM | Reply

Clown,

Don't expect any more responses from me.

#84 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-06-16 05:12 PM | Reply

Don't expect any more responses from me.
#84 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Mic drop?

LOL

#85 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-06-16 05:16 PM | Reply

Don't blame your problems on me.
#83 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

I blame the torment homosexual children and teenagers face at the hands of their religious parents, family members, neighbors, church associates, and politicians, on you.

You who renounced who he is and chose to live as a "heterosexual". As a shining example to homophobes that homosexuality really is a choice.

Your existence makes life worse for gay people. Because you're the "proof" that all those LGBT kids can be "straight", if they choose to be. Like you did.

Stop hiding behind Christianity. You do the religion a disservice. Using it as a shield for your hatred.

#86 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-06-16 05:17 PM | Reply

Don't expect any more responses from me.
#84 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

If I had a dollar, for ever time you've said that to me, I'd have like five or six bucks.

I'd go buy a sandwich and a tall glass of IDGAF what you choose to do.

Cowards retreat to their bunkers when theirass is showing.

#87 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-06-16 05:20 PM | Reply

Clown,

The problem is you are basing your self-acceptance and happiness on being accepted by others.

#88 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-06-16 08:06 PM | Reply

Clown,

My faith and relationship with God saved my life.

You'll never understand that.

#89 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-06-16 08:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The problem is you are basing your self-acceptance and happiness on being accepted by others."

In other words, it's fine with BillJohnson if restaurants don't accept gay people as customers or employees.
Since self-worth comes from within. Not from what society says about you.
So it's okay to discriminate. Those you discriminate against, they shouldn't mind, since self-worth comes from within.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-06-16 08:14 PM | Reply

My faith and relationship with God saved my life.
#89 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

I've heard this many times.
Just never from self-righteous ------.

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-06-16 08:15 PM | Reply

So Bill is practicing his holier than thou routine? God wouldn't like that. He loves HUMBLE servants not boastful ones.

#92 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-06-16 08:21 PM | Reply

BillJohnson is the kind of person who makes sure to say "please."

As in, "Papers, please."
It's not rude to send people to camps as long as you're polite about it.

JeffJ used the same gimmick. By being polite, and not using nasty language, he thinks his fascist tendencies are morally upright.

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-06-16 08:25 PM | Reply

"you are basing your self-acceptance and happiness on being accepted by others."

Not if you can be fired from your job for playing softball in a "gay" league. Then it becomes a matter of unequal treatment under the law.

"My faith and relationship with God saved my life."

Sorry, but if God is telling to you create a "lesser" of your brothers, it's not God who's talking to you.

#94 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-06-16 08:39 PM | Reply

Here is a summary of BillJohnson's fears:

The New York Times
Conservative Christian groups say Monday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling protecting the rights of gay and transgender workers could lead to years of lawsuits against religious organizations, many of which refuse to employ LGBT people
twitter.com

"No question it is going to make it harder to defend our religious freedom, as far as an organization being able to hire people of like mind," said Franklin Graham, who leads Samaritan's Purse, a large evangelical relief group.
...
The ruling would have "seismic implications" for religious freedom and would potentially set off years of lawsuits for religious organizations, said Russell Moore, the president of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.
...
The Association of Christian Schools International, which provides services to about 2,700 schools in the United States, is reviewing the implications of the case, and reiterated its position that sexual activity must only be between a man and a woman who are married. The group's president, Larry Taylor, said that "the impact on the hiring policies of religious institutions that teach the biblical view of marriage" and that "uphold a standard of conduct consistent with our faith" is "not yet fully understood."

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-06-17 02:19 AM | Reply

Here is a summary of BillJohnson's fears:

The inability to discriminate and the consequences for doing so.

It's a nightmare for fake Christians.

#96 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-06-17 02:26 AM | Reply

#75 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE

Just noticed your post.

You make a good errand boy.

#97 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-06-17 02:28 AM | Reply

#97 - cry more I guess, not sure what has your panties in a knot. Hope all is well.

#98 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2020-06-17 03:48 AM | Reply

Clown,

No...the summary is not correct.

Yes partially correct on a couple of points and totally wrong on another.

Then the list is missing other more important points.

All you can do is guess but you're guessing wrong.

Don't worry about my opinion.

Ok...now it's official.

I will never respond to you again....ever.

#99 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-06-17 03:52 AM | Reply

"Clown,
No...the summary is not correct."

Hi BillJohnson,
I posted that, not ClownDhack.

"Then the list is missing other more important points."

Go on...

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-06-17 04:00 AM | Reply

My mistake BillJohnson, I see you were referring to ClownShack's summary... of my summary!

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-06-17 04:05 AM | Reply

cry more I guess, not sure what has your panties in a knot. Hope all is well.
#98 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE

Cry more? Wow you're easily triggered.

Your responses says a lot.

Errand boy.

#102 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-06-17 04:08 AM | Reply

#102 - not sure who rubbed salt into your brown balloon knot, but I'm glad they did, lol.

#103 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2020-06-17 04:23 AM | Reply

not sure who rubbed salt into your brown balloon knot, but I'm glad they did,

I'm sure you can figure it out.

Have you examined the evidence?

Get you face up in there. Real close.

#104 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-06-17 04:33 AM | Reply

I'm the one who salted your balloon knot? Dang, I wasn't even trying.

#105 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2020-06-17 04:45 AM | Reply

You did?

Sneaky little salter.

I knew you could solve the mystery.

Good errand boy.

#106 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-06-17 04:52 AM | Reply

#106 "the mystery"

No mystery, it was loose, obviously used and abused, and yet a bit delicate and sensitive at the same time.

#107 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2020-06-17 04:54 AM | Reply

Like when a cooze designed for holding a beer can loses its structural integrity and starts sagging eventually accepting larger and larger inserts, that is your state of being.

#108 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2020-06-17 04:57 AM | Reply

No mystery, it was loose, obviously used and abused, and yet a bit delicate and sensitive at the same time.

Like when a cooze designed for holding a beer can loses its structural integrity and starts sagging eventually accepting larger and larger inserts, that is your state of being.

POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE

That's poetry man. Art.

Spoken like a man with first hand experience.

#109 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-06-17 05:05 AM | Reply

#109 - well, we are talking about your puckered ---------- and apparently my ability to make it sore, you said so yourself.

#110 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2020-06-17 05:06 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort