Supreme Court won't hear photo discri...

Supreme Court won't hear photo discrimination case

There are 76 comments on the KOAT-TV story from Apr 8, 2014, titled Supreme Court won't hear photo discrimination case. In it, KOAT-TV reports that:

S SUPREME COURT DECISION, IS A "DARK TIME." TODAY, THE COUNTRY'S HIGHEST COURT ANNOUNCED IT WILL NOT HEAR THE ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY CASE, INVOLVING A SAME SEX COUPLE TURNED AWAY BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KOAT-TV.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
INFIDEL

Socorro, NM

#74 Apr 10, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I cannot help the fact that there are idiots who cannot count to three, cannot understand that three or more is greater than two, or cannot extrapolate that they are not making a relevant argument.
I can engage in schadenfreude at their stupidity.
Counting to three is the irrelevant part of the argument. How did "two" become sacred. Among serial monogamists the rule used to be 1 man and 1 woman. Now the gay rights movement says, "No, it's 1 person and 1 person"? It seems like the new leaders of the exclusive country club (the gay rights movement) will now accept Asians but they still exclude Blacks? How enlightened. Are there any other people who are in intimate relationships with consenting adults that you feel deserve to be disenfranchised and imprisoned or is it just a fixation with the number 2? You embrace the concept of "schadenfreude" (which is taking pleasure in the misfortune of others) so tell us, is it just polygamists whose persecution amuses you and brings you joy? If you can take delight in the misfortune of others is it OK for people to do the same when some gay kid gets bashed or some lesbian gets gang raped? I don't believe in engaging in schadenfreude. I learned to avoid that sort of thinking when I was young. In fact I came to think of it as evil so explain how it works for you.
Sarah Palin

Sunnyvale, CA

#75 Apr 10, 2014
INFIDEL wrote:
<quoted text>
dumb stuff
Golly & gee whiz. I don't like gay marriage cuz I'm a nasty bee-atch, but even I can see it makes more sense than polygamy. They must get a helluva lot more exemptions on their tax returns than couples. Do all them wives get social security checks when the husband dies?

Who gets the kids in a divorce? Are they split up amongst wives? Who inherits in a dispute? Who has hospital visitation rights if only one is allowed? Who settles all this if the couple, I mean triple, I mean quadruple, well whatever...doesn't have the money for legal fees?

BTW, lides used the term "schadenfreude" in the comment you replied to, so why did you turn around and give its definition? I'm glad to see there's more than one person on here who's as stupid as me. You betcha!
Horace

United States

#76 Apr 10, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>I can engage in schadenfreude at their stupidity.
I figured it was some sort of Nazi happy dance.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#77 Apr 10, 2014
INFIDEL wrote:
Counting to three is the irrelevant part of the argument.
So long as one is talking of equality under the law, it is not.

Anyone who is not an idiot, or could count, could see that.

Clearly, you don't meet the preceding criteria.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#78 Apr 10, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I cannot help the fact that there are idiots who cannot count to three, cannot understand that three or more is greater than two, or cannot extrapolate that they are not making a relevant argument.
I can engage in schadenfreude at their stupidity.
I cannot help the fact that constitutional rights and protections are individual, not group. There are idiots who believe otherwise. Three or more people can't have more rights or protections than one, they can't be combined.

I'll try to dumb it down for you.
Billy, Jimmy and Suzy each have an ice cream cone.
Billy and Jimmy can't eat Suzy's.
Suzy and Billy can't eat Jimmy's.
Jimmy and Suzy can't eat Billy's.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#79 Apr 10, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
So long as one is talking of equality under the law, it is not.
Anyone who is not an idiot, or could count, could see that.
Clearly, you don't meet the preceding criteria.
Stop it, you have me laughing so hard I'm going to run out of Kleenex.
Ex Senator Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#80 Apr 10, 2014
Horace wrote:
And the hissy fits continue....
That's how mouthbreather tee baggrz react to factual information.

Again, "nudism" is not a protected category. A business owner may refuse service to an unclothed, or even "improperly" clothed person in a lot of instances.

A business owner may not refuse service on the basis of gender, race, religion, disability and so on.

Too "subtle" for the Fox News morons, but there you go.
Ex Senator Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#81 Apr 10, 2014
INFIDEL wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you keep on counting but it's absolutely hilarious to watch people defend gay marriage and then get all bent out of shape when polygamy is brought up.
Cletus, the question is whether rational governmental interest in prohibiting a particular sort of marriage can be found.

Interracial - no. Same sex - no. One man with many women - easy yes.

And those rational purposes have been explained many times. People pushing your line are simply trying to undermine marriage equality...to no avail.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#82 Apr 10, 2014
Sarah Palin wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Golly & gee whiz. I don't like gay marriage cuz I'm a nasty bee-atch, but even I can see it makes more sense than polygamy.
2. They must get a helluva lot more exemptions on their tax returns than couples.
3. Do all them wives get social security checks when the husband dies?
4. Who gets the kids in a divorce? Are they split up amongst wives?
5. Who inherits in a dispute?
6. Who has hospital visitation rights if only one is allowed?
7. Who settles all this if the couple, I mean triple, I mean quadruple, well whatever...doesn't have the money for legal fees?
8. BTW, lides used the term "schadenfreude" in the comment you replied to, so why did you turn around and give its definition? I'm glad to see there's more than one person on here who's as stupid as me. You betcha!
1. No it doesn't.
2. Anyone that has children will get the tax deduction.
3. If they worked 10 years, yes.
4. Court will decide, just like any other divorce.
5. Dead people don't have disputes.
6. All of them, one at a time.
7. The court.
8. Only 'Cancer Sux' is dumber than lides.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#83 Apr 10, 2014
5. If there is no executor then state law determines who gets what.

“Not everything that shines...”

Since: Aug 13

Hatch, NM

#84 Apr 10, 2014
well, would they?
Ex Sen Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#86 Apr 11, 2014
LuzAranda wrote:
well, would they?
Hey tee baggrz and future gun show safety demo fatality: Your question is non contextual.

What are you going on about there?

“Not everything that shines...”

Since: Aug 13

Hatch, NM

#87 Apr 11, 2014
'noncontextual' man, what a BIG word, and that blogging answered another fantasy that, as describing your name fits perfectly. Besides you misspelled 'tea bagger' as for gun shows, I stay away. My neighbors hold performances often, live and in color..'Free' no gratuity expected. A stray bullet might leave me I front of my computer by the window
Ex Sen Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#88 Apr 11, 2014
LuzAranda wrote:
'noncontextual' man, what a BIG word, and that blogging answered another fantasy that, as describing your name fits perfectly. Besides you misspelled 'tea bagger' as for gun shows, I stay away. My neighbors hold performances often, live and in color..'Free' no gratuity expected. A stray bullet might leave me I front of my computer by the window
Hey tee baggrz, I didn't misspell anything here.

You didn't explain what your first unhinged post was in reference to.

“Not everything that shines...”

Since: Aug 13

Hatch, NM

#89 Apr 12, 2014
maybe 'tee baggrz' refers to the grocery bags that I use as pillow fillers being that those plastics will not disintegrate, ever. The original lil'pillow stuffed with grocery plastic bags still holds on since the beginning of the 21st Century. I was gong to use it to aim at the UFO invaders. TOUGH but good sleeping aid. 14years and going. Don't understand what I'm saying? make your own pillow and you can be a part of the 21st Century..Use plastic grocery bags for stuffing since even paper bags aren't around anymore. No waste of plastic. Sleep tight.

“Not everything that shines...”

Since: Aug 13

Hatch, NM

#90 Apr 12, 2014
LuzAranda wrote:
well, would they?
this answer has as much sense as all the others

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Photography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Woman in hospice care has Santa photo shoot tha... Jan 2 LuzAranda 2
News Does Sheila Jackson Lee Know The Person She's A... Dec 29 eugenics-n-gentri... 1
News 'This is what we lost': Alberta artist honours ... Nov '17 Super Chug 1
News Echoes of a Lost West End Nov '17 POPS 1
News On Valentine's Day, couple celebrates romance b... (Feb '14) Nov '17 ROFLcopter 17
News PHOTOS: 25 Photographs from The Denver Post Pho... Oct '17 surfeagle 1
News Some of earliest US landscape photos coming to ... Sep '17 Rosa 3
More from around the web