Once again, the "tolerant ones" are most intolerant of those that will not bow before them as they demand and they now have the force of government (violating the FIRST AMENDMENT) in this decision.
If there's a gay thread, LAT will sign on in opposition. It's like clockwork. Do you have a google gay TD alert?
And as always, I am impressed with your logic here that tolerance means that people should be tolerant of intolerance or else they're intolerant. But aren't you intolerant of the intolerant for being intolerant of the intolerant!
And you being a strict constructionist states rights war of northern aggression kinda ghey, where in the first amendment does it state New Mexico or any state cannot abridge religion?
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.
I mean I know what the liberal SCOTUS has done jurisprudentially but you're a strict constructionist. The first amend is silent on states and only pertains to Congress.
Oh to piqué your interest in answering let me anti-ghey this up for you.... Bravo-TV hates Murica!
This post was edited on 8/23 at 9:14 am