Court favors disclosing anti-gay marr...

Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors

There are 1782 comments on the KCRA-TV Sacramento story from May 20, 2014, titled Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors. In it, KCRA-TV Sacramento reports that:

Same-sex marriage opponents can't keep the identities of their campaign donors secret, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in upholding a lower court decision.

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

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#657 Jun 10, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Still going with the JD thing? Sorry, Kiddo, were you a little older, or mentally developed, you might come up with a better insult.
I'm very happy with the 'Justice Dumbass' ID I've given you.
It's on the money. No one deserves it more.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#658 Jun 10, 2014
lides wrote:
I won't hold my breath.
I bet you do. I don't think you can breathe and do anything else at the same time.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#659 Jun 10, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Didn't you read the story? ""The concerns about harassment are very much alive, and we're going to continue to protect our donors wherever these concerns arise."
The donors don't want to be threatened and harassed. Even though these things are illegal, the law can do very little to prevent them.
Dear moron, why are you so scared of having people own up to their actions?
If money is speech, why shouldn't the speech of these people be made public?
Free speech has consequences, and right now, it appears that you support a lack of accountability, which is to say speech without consequence.
Wondering wrote:
I'm very happy with the 'Justice Dumbass' ID I've given you.
It's on the money. No one deserves it more.
That's because you are an idiot, and have the intelligence of a petulant child.
Were you not a moron, you might attempt to better yourself.
Wondering wrote:
I bet you do. I don't think you can breathe and do anything else at the same time.
No, I don't worry myself over your moronic nonsense one bit. It is certainly nothing to hold one's breath over.

Wondering, grow up. In the alternative, grow an argument; or a pair of balls for that matter.

Your regular posts that seek only to insult, and fail to offer any on topic argument are tiresome. It is amusing, to a point, to watch you make an a$$ of yourself, but ultimately it is engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed party.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#660 Jun 10, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
If money is speech, why shouldn't the speech of these people be made public?
Really? You talk to your money and it responds? That doesn't surprise me.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#661 Jun 10, 2014
lides wrote:
Your regular posts that seek only to insult, and fail to offer any on topic argument are tiresome.
That fits you perfectly. How many times in a week do you use the word 'moron?'
If you think you are surrounded by morons then why are you here? Tell the truth, you learn from them and then you insult them. Juvenile behavior if ever there was any.

Did you know that 3 is more than 2 is more than 1?
BWAHAHAHAHA!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#662 Jun 10, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Really? You talk to your money and it responds? That doesn't surprise me.
Are you willfully this stupid? Do you follow US Supreme Court decisions? I know you are too dumb to read them on your own and understand what they mean, but even a narcissistic news reader, like Rush Limbaugh gets some of the answers right.

Don't be an idiot, Wondering. The court has declared campaign finance to be speech. And in arguing that donors should be shielded, you argue for a lack of personal accountability.

Congratulations, you prove once again that you are an imbecile, and a disingenuous one at that.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#663 Jun 10, 2014
Wondering wrote:
That fits you perfectly. How many times in a week do you use the word 'moron?'
It depends entirely upon how many stupid posts you make that fail to address the topic at hand.

Why do you support shirking personal accountability, Wondering?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#664 Jun 10, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Are you willfully this stupid?
2. The court has declared campaign finance to be speech.
3. And in arguing that donors should be shielded, you argue for a lack of personal accountability.
1. JD, you said it, not me.
2. See how stupid they can be.
3. I argue for a right to privacy. People often give to worthwhile charities as anonymous donors. Money can always be donated anonymously so the foolish court decision is irrelevant anyway. People that want their privacy can have it.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#665 Jun 10, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It depends entirely upon how many stupid posts you make that fail to address the topic at hand.
Why do you support shirking personal accountability, Wondering?
It's not just me, you call everyone that. You must think you're pretty special. Everyone but you is a moron. You can call me anything you want to. The important thing is that you keep learning from me. No need to thank me.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#666 Jun 10, 2014
Wondering wrote:
1. JD, you said it, not me.
2. See how stupid they can be.
3. I argue for a right to privacy. People often give to worthwhile charities as anonymous donors. Money can always be donated anonymously so the foolish court decision is irrelevant anyway. People that want their privacy can have it.
1. So you are wittingly stupid. Good to know.
2. I see how stupid you are on a regular basis.
3. You argue for lack of personal accountability. If one wants privacy, they need not speak their views at all, which includes monetary donations.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#667 Jun 10, 2014
lides wrote:
You argue for lack of personal accountability. If one wants privacy, they need not speak their views at all, which includes monetary donations.
I argue for the right to privacy. If I make a donation to a cause it's no one's business. Period.
Look what some whacko gays did to a baker, a photographer, a florist. Why would anyone want to put up with that nonsense? That said, it's easy to donate money anonymously so your opinion and the court's opinion are irrelevant.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#668 Jun 10, 2014
Wondering wrote:
I argue for the right to privacy. If I make a donation to a cause it's no one's business. Period.
No, you argue for lack of personal accountability, because you are a hateful twit.
Wondering wrote:
Look what some whacko gays did to a baker, a photographer, a florist. Why would anyone want to put up with that nonsense? That said, it's easy to donate money anonymously so your opinion and the court's opinion are irrelevant.
In each instance you mention, the business owner broke the law, and thus far, they have failed in every court case they have participated in. Namely, because they broke the law.

Once again, you are arguing for a lack of personal accountability. Primarily because you are a bigoted moron.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#669 Jun 10, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I argue for the right to privacy. If I make a donation to a cause it's no one's business. Period.
Look what some whacko gays did to a baker, a photographer, a florist. Why would anyone want to put up with that nonsense? That said, it's easy to donate money anonymously so your opinion and the court's opinion are irrelevant.
Would secret contributions have helped the baker, photographer, or florist? At least those business people had the balls to stand up and declare their bigotry publicly.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#670 Jun 10, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Would secret contributions have helped the baker, photographer, or florist? At least those business people had the balls to stand up and declare their bigotry publicly.
Were they part of an organized fight against gay marriage?
Is telling a gay couple that they won't participate in their wedding making a public declaration? I'm pretty sure it was the gays that went public with it.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#671 Jun 10, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you argue for lack of personal accountability, because you are a hateful twit.
How many times do I have to tell you that I don't hate anyone, not even you?
It's easy to understand for most people. You are the hater, you've made that very clear.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#672 Jun 10, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Were they part of an organized fight against gay marriage?
No. They did break the law.
Wondering wrote:
Is telling a gay couple that they won't participate in their wedding making a public declaration?
Yes. It is also against the law in each of those jurisdictions, a fact that has been reiterated by multiple courts.
Wondering wrote:
I'm pretty sure it was the gays that went public with it.
I'm pretty certain that you are a pathetic loser who defends people who break the law.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#673 Jun 10, 2014
Doesn't matter. The law demanding donor disclosure was in effect long before this case; if NOM was so concerned, they should have warned their donors that their donation would be a matter of public record.
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't you read the story? ""The concerns about harassment are very much alive, and we're going to continue to protect our donors wherever these concerns arise."
The donors don't want to be threatened and harassed. Even though these things are illegal, the law can do very little to prevent them.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#674 Jun 10, 2014
Charities are not the same as a political action group. PAC's can't take anonymous donations.
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. JD, you said it, not me.
2. See how stupid they can be.
3. I argue for a right to privacy. People often give to worthwhile charities as anonymous donors. Money can always be donated anonymously so the foolish court decision is irrelevant anyway. People that want their privacy can have it.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#675 Jun 10, 2014
When a donation is made to a political group, it IS people's business, because that group is trying to affect or change law that we will be subject to. It's lobbying, and we definitely have a right to know who is trying to control our government.
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I argue for the right to privacy. If I make a donation to a cause it's no one's business. Period.
Look what some whacko gays did to a baker, a photographer, a florist. Why would anyone want to put up with that nonsense? That said, it's easy to donate money anonymously so your opinion and the court's opinion are irrelevant.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#676 Jun 10, 2014
They are employees, not participants. Moreover, they are business owners, which means they understand that their businesses must comply with all laws pertinent to that business, even the laws they think are stinky.
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Were they part of an organized fight against gay marriage?
Is telling a gay couple that they won't participate in their wedding making a public declaration? I'm pretty sure it was the gays that went public with it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Autos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
OBDSTAR X300 PRO3 Key Master Standard Version f... 4 hr giuseppe Mike 1
Nissan Consult iii plus v61.10 offline programm... 5 hr car-diagnostic-tool 1
newly released Handy Baby V7.0 6 hr uobd2 2
JMD Handy baby key programmer V7.0 update and d... 6 hr Ambrosio 1
Scania SDP3 v2.27 - NO activation de besoin, SA... 8 hr diyobd2 1
OBDSTAR X100 pro et Xtool X100 PRO, lequel? 8 hr diyobd2 1
Original SuperOBD SKP900 hand-held OBD key prog... 11 hr auto engineer 2
More from around the web