The Goat Pen

AlabamAlum wrote:eCat,

Most feel that Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan would support it. Gorsuch is surprisingly receptive to such things, too. He is certainly not what some think he is. He goes to a church that accepts gays, has hired gay clerks and got syrupy in praise when a gay couple married. He does not have a huge body of work in ruling on such matters, but I don't think he is anti-gay.

Now, Ginsburg could die and maybe one other Justice, and we could get a couple of neanderthals approved, but i don't think it's likely.

who is most?

at any rate, what is the standardized test to apply to being gay.

there are obvious signs to being handicapped, a minority, practicing religion. Lets go beyond the baking a cake example.

Someone sues my company because we fired him for being gay. How do they prove that? How do they prove they were gay on any specific date during their history of employment?

also I think there is noticeable backlash building on the whole bake a cake example. At one time the government may have chose discrimination over religious objections. I don't think that is the case anymore..

Even liberals are questioning the validity of the government telling religious people their viewpoint is wrong.

"Pushing against minimum wage and being anti-union goes against Trumps basic approach to his campaign"

So you're saying Trump nominated someone who represents everything against what he campaigned on? Shocking...

"Someone sues my company because we fired him for being gay. How do they prove that?"

What's the old saying? You can paint 1000 houses and nobody is going to call you an artist. But give one blowjob and you're a cocksucker for the rest of your life. Yes, that would be a (ahem) bitter pill to swallow, but if somebody was looking at a million dollar lawsuit and needed a witness, they might just do whatever they have to do...

hedge wrote:"Pushing against minimum wage and being anti-union goes against Trumps basic approach to his campaign"

So you're saying Trump nominated someone who represents everything against what he campaigned on? Shocking...

I'm not sure what his reasoning was for going with Pudzer. I just didn't see him as being aligned with what the middle class voters were looking for

In Ohio you can legally fire someone because he is gay.

Also in Ohio, it's illegal for women to wear patent leather shoes on Sunday.

It's also illegal to fish drunk in Ohio and to run out of gas in Youngstown.

thanks Google

eCat wrote:

hedge wrote:"Pushing against minimum wage and being anti-union goes against Trumps basic approach to his campaign"

So you're saying Trump nominated someone who represents everything against what he campaigned on? Shocking...

I'm not sure what his reasoning was for going with Pudzer. I just didn't see him as being aligned with what the middle class voters were looking for

Neither did I. I was real happy when he was "eliminated" yesterday. Whether or not Trump told him he would be eliminated last week because of hiring the illegal alien OR him thinking that he wouldn't get the Senate votes, I don't care. Happy either way

So where does the NRA go from here, now that the right of the criminally insane to buy guns has been reaffirmed? How 'bout federal assistance for the financially strapped crazies, similar to the health exchange subsidies, so they can better exercise their God-given 2A right to personal home security aka a laser-scoped bushmaster with a 6 position collapsible stock, bayonet lug and a couple hundred rounds (or more, depending on the density of the local population).

bluetick wrote:So where does the NRA go from here, now that the right of the criminally insane to buy guns has been reaffirmed?

This was about using Social Security rolls to take away gun rights.

the law already provides for dis-allowing the ownership of firearms by people that are adjudicated as mentally unfit .

This law took away someone's right to be judged unfit. As I understand it, being unable to manage your personal finances was enough to merit consideration by this ruling.

It was patently unfair to all Americans.


Even the ACLU was for revoking this rule.

Weird, right? The ACLU backed that Senate bill, but not Trump or law enforcement. Lib lawyers just can't abide any discrimination against the mentally ill in any form.

its easy to say "crazy people don't need to own a gun"

who would argue with that?

but there is no solution without infringing on the rights of Americans beyond what the law states now.

eCat wrote:its easy to say "crazy people don't need to own a gun"

The devil is in the details

aTm wrote:

eCat wrote:its easy to say "crazy people don't need to own a gun"

The devil is in the details

or if they talked to the Devil...

It is VERY easy to say a crazy person shouldn't own a gun.. and even mean it. The NRA says it all the time, when they're asked to comment on a mass shooting or get confronted with suicide statistics. But of course the NRA is a shill for the gun and ammo makers, who very much want to sell to crazy people, so they talk delicately out of both sides of their mouth.

The absolute bottom line: Certain senators got to tell their supporters they overturned an oprama anti-gun measure. And yeah, that included some dems as well. NRA gets another win, and pledges a donation to xyz mental health organization.

SNL is going to have a field day with this Trump press conference...

"Nuclear holocaust would be like no other." - Donald Trump

bluetick wrote:It is VERY easy to say a crazy person shouldn't own a gun.. and even mean it. The NRA says it all the time, when they're asked to comment on a mass shooting or get confronted with suicide statistics. But of course the NRA is a shill for the gun and ammo makers, who very much want to sell to crazy people, so they talk delicately out of both sides of their mouth.

The absolute bottom line: Certain senators got to tell their supporters they overturned an oprama anti-gun measure. And yeah, that included some dems as well. NRA gets another win, and pledges a donation to xyz mental health organization.

the law says a crazy person can't own a gun.

what more do you want?

Can gay people in Ohio own guns? Probably not a good idea, lest they shoot up all those bakeries that refuse to serve them...