(07-26-2014 10:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The thread title is misleading. This guy was fired after he allowed his husband around the kids. He was not fired for being gay, or marrying gay. He was fired because he brought his gayness into his job.

It's not misleading at all.

unless any employee brings their spouse in gets fired, its discrimination if these rules only apply to homosexuals.

(07-27-2014 09:57 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:54 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 11:02 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  Tom, I don't like saying this to you because it's a schitty answer to a decent guy (you) so this is a response to the other libs who threw this in our faces for weeks and weeks: It's the law. That should shut down dawg, john666, and the Memphis Moron.

are you kidding?

It was once the law that blacks had to use different fountains and we all know how that turned out......

Missed his point.

no I hit his point perfectly. "it's the law" when justifying discrimination is not a valid talking point.

No. You haven't a clue. Or playing (?) the idiot again.

(07-27-2014 09:54 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 11:02 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  Tom, I don't like saying this to you because it's a schitty answer to a decent guy (you) so this is a response to the other libs who threw this in our faces for weeks and weeks: It's the law. That should shut down dawg, john666, and the Memphis Moron.

are you kidding?
It was once the law that blacks had to use different fountains and we all know how that turned out......

Yes, but blacks are protected by the Civil War Amendments. And if, as the left has been arguing so vociferously in the ACA subsidy discussion, the drafter's intent matters, not the letter of the law, you have a bit of a problem. While there is a great deal of evidence that the 14th Amendment was intended to extend beyond just blacks, there is no evidence that providing protection for gays was ever contemplated by the drafters. So no protections for the gays. Great job intentionalists!

For that matter, there is even less evidence that women were included under the 14th Amendment. Who has the war on women?

(07-27-2014 10:07 AM)jh Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:54 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 11:02 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  Tom, I don't like saying this to you because it's a schitty answer to a decent guy (you) so this is a response to the other libs who threw this in our faces for weeks and weeks: It's the law. That should shut down dawg, john666, and the Memphis Moron.

are you kidding?
It was once the law that blacks had to use different fountains and we all know how that turned out......

Yes, but blacks are protected by the Civil War Amendments. And if, as the left has been arguing so vociferously in the ACA subsidy discussion, the drafter's intent matters, not the letter of the law, you have a bit of a problem. While there is a great deal of evidence that the 14th Amendment was intended to extend beyond just blacks, there is no evidence that providing protection for gays was ever contemplated by the drafters. So no protections for the gays. Great job intentionalists!

For that matter, there is even less evidence that women were included under the 14th Amendment. Who has the war on women?

anyone who legitimately thinks that this country will accept that some of its citizens will continue to be discriminated under the concept "well it's the law, sorry they are SOL" are in for a very rude awakening.

(07-27-2014 10:02 AM)Paul M Wrote:  No. You haven't a clue. Or playing (?) the idiot again.

funny how you call me an idiot and yet you can never give a rebuttal. It is always "you are wrong/you are an idiot because I say so"

(07-27-2014 09:57 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 10:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The thread title is misleading. This guy was fired after he allowed his husband around the kids. He was not fired for being gay, or marrying gay. He was fired because he brought his gayness into his job.

It's not misleading at all.

unless any employee brings their spouse in gets fired, its discrimination if these rules only apply to homosexuals.

You apparantly cant read, so let me help you out:

1. Was this guy fired after his manager found out he was gay? NO
2. Was this guy fired after marrying a guy? No
3. Was this guy fired after bringing his husband around the kids at his job? Yes

He wasnt fired for marrying gay. He was fired because he was bringing his gayness into his job. Period. Quit trying to indoctrinate the kids with your gayness. Leave it in your bedroom.

So the title of this thread is a lie. He wasnt fired for marrying gay. He was fired from pushing his gay agenda onto the kids.

(07-27-2014 11:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:57 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 10:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The thread title is misleading. This guy was fired after he allowed his husband around the kids. He was not fired for being gay, or marrying gay. He was fired because he brought his gayness into his job.

It's not misleading at all.

unless any employee brings their spouse in gets fired, its discrimination if these rules only apply to homosexuals.

You apparantly cant read, so let me help you out:

1. Was this guy fired after his manager found out he was gay? NO
2. Was this guy fired after marrying a guy? No
3. Was this guy fired after bringing his husband around the kids at his job? Yes

He wasnt fired for marrying gay. He was fired because he was bringing his gayness into his job. Period. Quit trying to indoctrinate the kids with your gayness. Leave it in your bedroom.

So the title of this thread is a lie. He wasnt fired for marrying gay. He was fired from pushing his gay agenda onto the kids.

He is, after all, the Gold Standard of Stupidity and also a raging hypocrite. So, an inability to read on John-boy's part, is pretty high up there.

(07-27-2014 11:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:57 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 10:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The thread title is misleading. This guy was fired after he allowed his husband around the kids. He was not fired for being gay, or marrying gay. He was fired because he brought his gayness into his job.

It's not misleading at all.

unless any employee brings their spouse in gets fired, its discrimination if these rules only apply to homosexuals.

You apparantly cant read, so let me help you out:

1. Was this guy fired after his manager found out he was gay? NO
2. Was this guy fired after marrying a guy? No
3. Was this guy fired after bringing his husband around the kids at his job? Yes

He wasnt fired for marrying gay. He was fired because he was bringing his gayness into his job. Period. Quit trying to indoctrinate the kids with your gayness. Leave it in your bedroom.

So the title of this thread is a lie. He wasnt fired for marrying gay. He was fired from pushing his gay agenda onto the kids.

He was fired for doing something that any hetrosexual couple would be allowed to do. Sorry but that's discrimination no ifs ands or buts.

(07-27-2014 01:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 11:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:57 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 10:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The thread title is misleading. This guy was fired after he allowed his husband around the kids. He was not fired for being gay, or marrying gay. He was fired because he brought his gayness into his job.

It's not misleading at all.

unless any employee brings their spouse in gets fired, its discrimination if these rules only apply to homosexuals.

You apparantly cant read, so let me help you out:

1. Was this guy fired after his manager found out he was gay? NO
2. Was this guy fired after marrying a guy? No
3. Was this guy fired after bringing his husband around the kids at his job? Yes

He wasnt fired for marrying gay. He was fired because he was bringing his gayness into his job. Period. Quit trying to indoctrinate the kids with your gayness. Leave it in your bedroom.

So the title of this thread is a lie. He wasnt fired for marrying gay. He was fired from pushing his gay agenda onto the kids.

He was fired for doing something that any hetrosexual couple would be allowed to do. Sorry but that's discrimination no ifs ands or buts.

So you finally agree it wasn't because he is gay,

(07-26-2014 10:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The thread title is misleading. This guy was fired after he allowed his husband around the kids. He was not fired for being gay, or marrying gay. He was fired because he brought his gayness into his job.

His husband. LOL, I still can't see how gays don't see the stupidity in this.

But, I still haven't gotten an answer to how gays distinguish who will be the husband or wife. I can just see them in an argument, "let me be frank". "No way, you were Frank last month".

In any job working with kids you have to pass a screening to be able to work with them, perhaps "his husband" hadn't gone through that screening.

(07-27-2014 01:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 11:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:57 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 10:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The thread title is misleading. This guy was fired after he allowed his husband around the kids. He was not fired for being gay, or marrying gay. He was fired because he brought his gayness into his job.

It's not misleading at all.

unless any employee brings their spouse in gets fired, its discrimination if these rules only apply to homosexuals.

You apparantly cant read, so let me help you out:

1. Was this guy fired after his manager found out he was gay? NO
2. Was this guy fired after marrying a guy? No
3. Was this guy fired after bringing his husband around the kids at his job? Yes

He wasnt fired for marrying gay. He was fired because he was bringing his gayness into his job. Period. Quit trying to indoctrinate the kids with your gayness. Leave it in your bedroom.

So the title of this thread is a lie. He wasnt fired for marrying gay. He was fired from pushing his gay agenda onto the kids.

He was fired for doing something that any hetrosexual couple would be allowed to do. Sorry but that's discrimination no ifs ands or buts.

Unless he was fired for marrying a dude, then the thread title is a lie. Your responses so far seem to be that you also agree that the title is a lie.

(07-27-2014 04:25 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 01:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 11:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:57 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 10:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The thread title is misleading. This guy was fired after he allowed his husband around the kids. He was not fired for being gay, or marrying gay. He was fired because he brought his gayness into his job.

It's not misleading at all.

unless any employee brings their spouse in gets fired, its discrimination if these rules only apply to homosexuals.

You apparantly cant read, so let me help you out:

1. Was this guy fired after his manager found out he was gay? NO
2. Was this guy fired after marrying a guy? No
3. Was this guy fired after bringing his husband around the kids at his job? Yes

He wasnt fired for marrying gay. He was fired because he was bringing his gayness into his job. Period. Quit trying to indoctrinate the kids with your gayness. Leave it in your bedroom.

So the title of this thread is a lie. He wasnt fired for marrying gay. He was fired from pushing his gay agenda onto the kids.

He was fired for doing something that any hetrosexual couple would be allowed to do. Sorry but that's discrimination no ifs ands or buts.

Unless he was fired for marrying a dude, then the thread title is a lie. Your responses so far seem to be that you also agree that the title is a lie.

Firing an employee for it being known that he is married = firing an employee for marrying.

(07-27-2014 04:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 04:25 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 01:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 11:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 09:57 AM)john01992 Wrote:  It's not misleading at all.

unless any employee brings their spouse in gets fired, its discrimination if these rules only apply to homosexuals.

You apparantly cant read, so let me help you out:

1. Was this guy fired after his manager found out he was gay? NO
2. Was this guy fired after marrying a guy? No
3. Was this guy fired after bringing his husband around the kids at his job? Yes

He wasnt fired for marrying gay. He was fired because he was bringing his gayness into his job. Period. Quit trying to indoctrinate the kids with your gayness. Leave it in your bedroom.

So the title of this thread is a lie. He wasnt fired for marrying gay. He was fired from pushing his gay agenda onto the kids.

He was fired for doing something that any hetrosexual couple would be allowed to do. Sorry but that's discrimination no ifs ands or buts.

Unless he was fired for marrying a dude, then the thread title is a lie. Your responses so far seem to be that you also agree that the title is a lie.

Firing an employee for it being known that he is married = firing an employee for marrying.

Failed liberal logic.

Dude got married to a dude, did not get fired.

Dude brings his dude husband around kids at work, dude gets fired.

(07-27-2014 05:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 04:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 04:25 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 01:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 11:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You apparantly cant read, so let me help you out:

1. Was this guy fired after his manager found out he was gay? NO
2. Was this guy fired after marrying a guy? No
3. Was this guy fired after bringing his husband around the kids at his job? Yes

He wasnt fired for marrying gay. He was fired because he was bringing his gayness into his job. Period. Quit trying to indoctrinate the kids with your gayness. Leave it in your bedroom.

So the title of this thread is a lie. He wasnt fired for marrying gay. He was fired from pushing his gay agenda onto the kids.

He was fired for doing something that any hetrosexual couple would be allowed to do. Sorry but that's discrimination no ifs ands or buts.

Unless he was fired for marrying a dude, then the thread title is a lie. Your responses so far seem to be that you also agree that the title is a lie.

Firing an employee for it being known that he is married = firing an employee for marrying.

Failed liberal logic.

Dude got married to a dude, did not get fired.

Dude brings his dude husband around kids at work, dude gets fired.

And straight employees get fired for bringing their spouse to work or for having the kids know that they are married?

(07-27-2014 07:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 05:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 04:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 04:25 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 01:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  He was fired for doing something that any hetrosexual couple would be allowed to do. Sorry but that's discrimination no ifs ands or buts.

Unless he was fired for marrying a dude, then the thread title is a lie. Your responses so far seem to be that you also agree that the title is a lie.

Firing an employee for it being known that he is married = firing an employee for marrying.

Failed liberal logic.

Dude got married to a dude, did not get fired.

Dude brings his dude husband around kids at work, dude gets fired.

And straight employees get fired for bringing their spouse to work or for having the kids know that they are married?

show me where in the article that was addressed? It wasnt. However, we do know from the article that the subject line of this thread is a lie. He was not fired for marrying a gay guy.

(07-27-2014 07:09 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 07:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 05:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 04:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 04:25 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Unless he was fired for marrying a dude, then the thread title is a lie. Your responses so far seem to be that you also agree that the title is a lie.

Firing an employee for it being known that he is married = firing an employee for marrying.

Failed liberal logic.

Dude got married to a dude, did not get fired.

Dude brings his dude husband around kids at work, dude gets fired.

And straight employees get fired for bringing their spouse to work or for having the kids know that they are married?

show me where in the article that was addressed? It wasnt. However, we do know from the article that the subject line of this thread is a lie. He was not fired for marrying a gay guy.

Go back and read the article.

(07-27-2014 07:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 07:09 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 07:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 05:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 04:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Firing an employee for it being known that he is married = firing an employee for marrying.

Failed liberal logic.

Dude got married to a dude, did not get fired.

Dude brings his dude husband around kids at work, dude gets fired.

And straight employees get fired for bringing their spouse to work or for having the kids know that they are married?

show me where in the article that was addressed? It wasnt. However, we do know from the article that the subject line of this thread is a lie. He was not fired for marrying a gay guy.

Go back and read the article.

im not going to go back an re-read about some gay guy getting butthurt cause he was canned after he allowed his gay husband to get around the kids where he works. Perhaps you can simply point to the line in the article that says he was fired because he married gay.

(07-26-2014 10:59 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Back at ya regarding pedophilia

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/loc...-15yo-girl
http://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/4...l-assault/
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/...728602.php
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014...hip-church
http://www.examiner.com/article/baptist-...ongregants
http://wnep.com/2014/04/04/scranton-prie...e-charges/

Back at who? You willfully deny the point.

(07-26-2014 10:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The thread title is misleading. This guy was fired after he allowed his husband around the kids. He was not fired for being gay, or marrying gay. He was fired because he brought his gayness into his job.

Standard operating procedure for liberals.