Court favors disclosing anti-gay marr...

Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors

There are 1786 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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#994 Jun 20, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Stupid and ad hominem attacks are your themes. You have little else.
Wondering, have you finally come up with that compelling governmental interest you have been looking for that would render your arguments valid and begin to imply that you are not a half-wit?

Face it kiddo, you have no argument, and you regularly post without so much as attempting to touch upon the subject.

The long and the short of it is that you cannot find a single valid argument why same sex couples should not be afforded equality under the law, and you are reduced to being a whining troll with no point.

Well played, kiddo.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#995 Jun 20, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, have you finally come up with that compelling governmental interest you have been looking for that would render your arguments valid and begin to imply that you are not a half-wit?
Face it kiddo, you have no argument, and you regularly post without so much as attempting to touch upon the subject.
The long and the short of it is that you cannot find a single valid argument why same sex couples should not be afforded equality under the law, and you are reduced to being a whining troll with no point.
Well played, kiddo.
Moron, this thread is about " disclosing anti-gay marriage donors."
Make at least a small effort to stay on topic. So far you've confirmed that you are against a person's right to privacy and you support the illegal harassment of people that donate to causes that you don't approve of. Do you have anything else to add?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#996 Jun 20, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Moron, this thread is about " disclosing anti-gay marriage donors."
Make at least a small effort to stay on topic. So far you've confirmed that you are against a person's right to privacy and you support the illegal harassment of people that donate to causes that you don't approve of. Do you have anything else to add?
Yes, it is. And yet, you haven't said anything about that topic in ages.

So, how about it Wondering, why do you think that people should not stand behind their opinions? This has nothing to do with privacy. If they want privacy, then they have the right not to donate or speak out publicly on a topic. Once they do so, any right to privacy is forfeited.

It's sort of like having one's picture taken in public. Once one leaves the confines of their house, they lose the reasonable expectation of privacy. Of course, Wondering can't be bothered by understanding basic concepts and the law.

Perhaps, because you are a cowardly troll?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#997 Jun 20, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Yes, it is. And yet, you haven't said anything about that topic in ages.
2. So, how about it Wondering, why do you think that people should not stand behind their opinions?
3. This has nothing to do with privacy.
4. If they want privacy, then they have the right not to donate or speak out publicly on a topic.
5. Once they do so, any right to privacy is forfeited.
6. It's sort of like having one's picture taken in public.
7. Once one leaves the confines of their house, they lose the reasonable expectation of privacy. Of course, Wondering can't be bothered by understanding basic concepts and the law.
8. Perhaps, because you are a cowardly troll?
1. Really? Did you not read the post you are responding to? Idiot.
2. I stand behind mine. Unlike you, I don't try to speak for everyone else.
3. It does. Blame the gay activists that do the harassing and make the threats. Don't blame the donors.
4. They support the cause. They have every right to donate and not be threatened.
5. Anyone can give anonymously. Do you want the instructions again.
6. No it isn't.
7. I understand that threats and harassment are illegal, you don't seem to.
8. That goes double for you.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#998 Jun 20, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Really? Did you not read the post you are responding to? Idiot.
2. I stand behind mine. Unlike you, I don't try to speak for everyone else.
3. It does. Blame the gay activists that do the harassing and make the threats. Don't blame the donors.
4. They support the cause. They have every right to donate and not be threatened.
5. Anyone can give anonymously. Do you want the instructions again.
6. No it isn't.
7. I understand that threats and harassment are illegal, you don't seem to.
8. That goes double for you.
Troll on, Wondering, troll on.

Can you indicate a single reason why these donations should not be disclosed to the public? The court is right to disclose the donations. If political spending is speech, as the US Supreme Court has held, then speaking removes a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The depths of your magical thinking seem to know no bounds.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#999 Jun 20, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you indicate a single reason why these donations should not be disclosed to the public? The court is right to disclose the donations.
Two brain farts in two sentences. Did you mean 'donors?'
How many times must I say to you that the donors will be illegally harassed and threatened by gay activists before you actually know I've said it? The 'Friday Funnies' are in play, thanks for the laughs.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1000 Jun 20, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Two brain farts in two sentences. Did you mean 'donors?'
How many times must I say to you that the donors will be illegally harassed and threatened by gay activists before you actually know I've said it? The 'Friday Funnies' are in play, thanks for the laughs.
Wondering, you claim they will be "illegally" harassed. You have offered no proof of that claim.

As on so many other topic, you are wrong about this, and donors should not be able to give anonymously.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1001 Jun 20, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, you claim they will be "illegally" harassed. You have offered no proof of that claim.
I think anyone mentally developed enough to safely use crayons would agree with me.
They even harassed the APA into taking the disorder out of the DSM. They defaced Chick-fil-a franchises. Tried to get Phil Robertson fired. Put a baker out of the wedding cake business, how much proof do you need?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1002 Jun 20, 2014
Wondering wrote:
I think anyone mentally developed enough to safely use crayons would agree with me.
They even harassed the APA into taking the disorder out of the DSM. They defaced Chick-fil-a franchises. Tried to get Phil Robertson fired. Put a baker out of the wedding cake business, how much proof do you need?
Funny you should say that, Wondering, because I'm relatively certain that the justices of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are certainly able to safely use crayons, I am quite certain they are intellectually superior to you, and they disagree with you.

Before you start making childish claims, like "anyone mentally developed enough to safely use crayons would agree with me," You might want to take the time to read the article that proves concretely that this claim is incorrect.

Thanks for reaffirming your tenuous grasp of reality, Wondering.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1003 Jun 20, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I think anyone mentally developed enough to safely use crayons would agree with me.
They even harassed the APA into taking the disorder out of the DSM. They defaced Chick-fil-a franchises. Tried to get Phil Robertson fired. Put a baker out of the wedding cake business, how much proof do you need?
Of course, you really don't care about any of those things when they happen to gay people. Even a bone head like you is aware that far more gays are fired, harassed, beaten, and even killed than "Christians." Even a bone head like you is aware that NOM and its ilk have announced far more boycotts and letter-writing campaigns against pro-gay businesses than the pro-gay have launched against anti-gay businesses.

You are completely transparent: You really don't give a damn about your alleged principles. You simply don't like gays and you think that anything that's done to them is justified. And anything gays to to attain equality needs to be condemned.

Fortunately, more and more Americans are horrified by your outlook and your tactics.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1004 Jun 20, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I think anyone mentally developed enough to safely use crayons would agree with me.
They even harassed the APA into taking the disorder out of the DSM.
There's that lie again. How stupid are you to keep repeating that lie? Everyone knows that the pro-gay made in incontrovertible case, or else the APA would have continued to ignore them.
They defaced Chick-fil-a franchises.
I believe there was one, at most two miscreants who acted independently--not part of any organized group of gay rights advocates. How many anti-gay attacks have been carried out by the "Christians?" You have no sense of proportion because you don't have any compassion for gays. In fact, you enjoy seeing them attacked.
Tried to get Phil Robertson fired.
There's your second lie. No gay advocacy organizations called for Robertson to be fired.
Put a baker out of the wedding cake business, how much proof do you need?
You mean customers filed discrimination charges against a business. The business subsequently decided to go out of business rather than treat all customers equally. He should have stayed out of business from the beginning if he didn't want to comply with local laws.

There's the third lie in only one post. You're pathological, aren't you?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1005 Jun 20, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny you should say that, Wondering, because I'm relatively certain that the justices of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are certainly able to safely use crayons, I am quite certain they are intellectually superior to you, and they disagree with you.
JD, are you saying the court condones this:
They even harassed the APA into taking the disorder out of the DSM. They defaced Chick-fil-a franchises. Tried to get Phil Robertson fired. Put a baker out of the wedding cake business, how much proof do you need?

Maybe you think none of it is true. You do keep me laughing myass off though. You ask for proof. I provide it, you say the court doesn't think there is anything wrong with it.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1006 Jun 20, 2014
JD, reading coach. Start your search right now. If reading and comprehension were food, you'd have died of starvation years ago.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1007 Jun 20, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
JD, are you saying the court condones this:
They even harassed the APA into taking the disorder out of the DSM. They defaced Chick-fil-a franchises. Tried to get Phil Robertson fired. Put a baker out of the wedding cake business, how much proof do you need?
Maybe you think none of it is true. You do keep me laughing myass off though. You ask for proof. I provide it, you say the court doesn't think there is anything wrong with it.
Appeal emotion fallacy. ROTFLMAO

Who is "they?"
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1008 Jun 20, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
Who is "they?"
You need to sign up for the lides reading class. I can't believe I'm finding so much stupidity in this one tiny thread. We pay so much for public education and it's a failure.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1009 Jun 20, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to sign up for the lides reading class. I can't believe I'm finding so much stupidity in this one tiny thread. We pay so much for public education and it's a failure.
You used the term, "they" in your previous post.

Answer the question. Who is "they" in your previous post.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1010 Jun 20, 2014
"They even harassed the APA into taking the disorder out of the DSM."

Who is "they?"

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1011 Jun 20, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to sign up for the lides reading class. I can't believe I'm finding so much stupidity in this one tiny thread.
Then stop writing posts.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1012 Jun 20, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Of course, you really don't care about any of those things when they happen to gay people.
2. Even a bone head like you is aware that far more gays are fired, harassed, beaten, and even killed than "Christians."
3. Even a bone head like you is aware that NOM and its ilk have announced far more boycotts and letter-writing campaigns against pro-gay businesses than the pro-gay have launched against anti-gay businesses.
4. You are completely transparent: You really don't give a damn about your alleged principles.
5. You simply don't like gays and you think that anything that's done to them is justified. And anything gays to to attain equality needs to be condemned.
6. Fortunately, more and more Americans are horrified by your outlook and your tactics.
1. No one should be bullied or harassed. Believe what you will.
2. I thought most gays were Christians.
3. Good for them. What's good for the goose.......
4. I have you fooled.
5. See #1.
6. Most Americans are aligned with my feelings. They don't care what gays do if they stay out of their business.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1013 Jun 20, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
How stupid are you to keep repeating that lie?
It's a well known fact. I understand why you call it a lie.

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
News Chevy Volt leapfrogs Toyota's Prius (Nov '10) 4 hr Fed Up with Iluvm... 10,535
Junk My Car, Auto Salvage, Cash for Cars, ... (Jan '12) Fri jstrong196 21
News Vacaville residents concerned about chromium le... Aug 27 Birds Landing Bob 7
News Acura NSX will use Cosworth block, plus other n... Aug 27 Daniel Edgar Sickles 2
Best solution for car computing parts Aug 27 Autopcms 1
Craiglist/eBay scam (Mar '12) Aug 26 Phillip123 145
North West Autos Blackburn Reviews for Used Cars (Feb '15) Aug 26 Gar ick 2
More from around the web