GOP Has Anti-Gay Hate Preacher Open Session Of MN Legislature - Polidicks

I really fucking wonder why people even try to take away gay people rights, i mean, the fuck does it do to anyone? Anyone got an answer? No? Thats what i thought.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;29972230]I really fucking wonder why people even try to take away gay people rights, i mean, the fuck does it do to anyone? Anyone got an answer? No? Thats what i thought.[/QUOTE] because they eat each other's "poopoo," according to uganda

[QUOTE=AaronM202;29972230]I really fucking wonder why people even try to take away gay people rights, i mean, the fuck does it do to anyone? Anyone got an answer? No? Thats what i thought.[/QUOTE] It erodes the fabric of society

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29972552]It erodes the fabric of society[/QUOTE] ppff if they were truly gay they wouldn't erode any kind of fabric

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29972552]It erodes the fabric of society[/QUOTE] Gays: The fabric softener of the world.

that democrat speaking out against the dude was sorta a tool he spoke like this and it was annoying [editline]21st May 2011[/editline] i mean is he so mad that he cant talk properly? i prolly would have just walked out when i saw that piece of shit pastor's face, not wait to make some badly executed speech

the fact that they even allowed a prayer in a government building is despicable. first amendment violations much?

And now for something completely different... A man, with three ass holes.

[QUOTE=Nerts;29972180]Dems are center right[/QUOTE] Not really. Recently they've had to compromise with Republicans on a lot of things, pushing them to the Right, but they're a Centrist party leaning to the Left at heart.

Was he giving a prayer wearing a [I]track suit[/I][I]?[/I]

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;29981221]Was he giving a prayer wearing a [I]track suit[/I][I]?[/I][/QUOTE] It's a holy track suit.

[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;29980902]the fact that they even allowed a prayer in a government building is despicable. first amendment violations much?[/QUOTE] Do you understand what the first amendment says? [release]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.[/release] Where is the violation? What law was enacted?

yeah he even says himself it's a non-denominational prayer. still a dickhead though

We don't need this crap dammit, everyone here has been tolerant and gotten along just fine and its worked out pretty well. We even have an openly Islamic Representative that was sworn in using the Koran. The Republicans can take there closed minded bigotry back to the South, we don't need it here.

Pretty soon, the only people that will support Republicans are Neo-Nazi types and the rich.

[QUOTE=thisispain;29972867]ppff if they were truly gay they wouldn't erode any kind of fabric[/QUOTE] polyester we hate that shit

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29982455]polyester we hate that shit[/QUOTE] i thought you was bi, that's not the same as ghey dude :colbert:

[QUOTE=thisispain;29982488]i thought you was bi, that's not the same as ghey dude :colbert:[/QUOTE] heh polyester

[QUOTE=thisispain;29982488]i thought you was bi, that's not the same as ghey dude :colbert:[/QUOTE] I have the knowledge of both sides I watch nascar and comment about how the sponsor's colours clash with the car's base paint job, while drinking budwesier but really wishing I had something a bit girlier to drink

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29982551]I have the knowledge of both sides I watch nascar and comment about how the sponsor's colours clash with the car's base paint job, while drinking budwesier but really wishing I had something a bit girlier to drink[/QUOTE] one of my gay friends were drunk one time and he talked shit about bi people once. you gotta step up on your gay knowledge he says ???

[QUOTE=thisispain;29982566]one of my gay friends were drunk one time and he talked shit about bi people once. you gotta step up on your gay knowledge he says ???[/QUOTE] I've met a few gay people who didn't like bisexuals actually it's odd

[QUOTE=Pepin;29981463]Do you understand what the first amendment says? [release]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.[/release] Where is the violation? What law was enacted?[/QUOTE] um they arent allowed to respect and establishment of religion? they dont have to actually enact a law, that isnt how the first amendment works just like how it doesnt have to be congress either, no state is allowed to pass a law either [QUOTE=Lachz0r;29981689]yeah he even says himself it's a non-denominational prayer. still a dickhead though[/QUOTE] he says its non-denominational then goes on to say its about jesus christ, which instantly excludes muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, to name a few

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30002511]um they arent allowed to respect and establishment of religion? they dont have to actually enact a law, that isnt how the first amendment works just like how it doesnt have to be congress either, no state is allowed to pass a law either he says its non-denominational then goes on to say its about jesus christ, which instantly excludes muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, to name a few[/QUOTE] jesus is a muslim prophet too. but yeah you're right. what a wanker.

Lol religion, Lol republicans.

Goddamnit guys, the comments ITT made me spill my Pepsi. Especially you Zeke. [editline]23rd May 2011[/editline] Plus most gays I know approve of us Bi's.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30002511]um they arent allowed to respect and establishment of religion? they dont have to actually enact a law, that isnt how the first amendment works just like how it doesnt have to be congress either, no state is allowed to pass a law either[/QUOTE] No state is allowed to pass a law the has anything to do with religion just as no state based law can override any over constitutional amendment or law (although they still have power through nullification). There is no reason for you to believe that the first amendment somehow means that religious practices cannot be done on public property or that politicians as individuals cannot endorse religion. Their right to do so is protected by the first amendment and you must understand that what you are arguing isn't government endorsement, but rather individual endorsement by politicians which is protected. I don't how you are arguing how the first amendment is talking about more than making laws because there is no basis for that inference especially when reading the text. The recent view of separation of church and state really has only come into play since the 1950's and is somehow arguing that there can't be anything religious on public property. There is nothing in the constitution to support and the interpretation you've been told is not at all accurate as far as the intention of the first amendment. Historically and textually there can be no argument made to say that the first amendment prohibits religious activities on public property. Please provide a good and specific arguments if you still disagree so I can prove you wrong on the points you make.

There is no god.

[QUOTE=Pepin;30006954]No state is allowed to pass a law the has anything to do with religion just as no state based law can override any over constitutional amendment or law (although they still have power through nullification). There is no reason for you to believe that the first amendment somehow means that religious practices cannot be done on public property or that politicians as individuals cannot endorse religion. Their right to do so is protected by the first amendment and you must understand that what you are arguing isn't government endorsement, but rather individual endorsement by politicians which is protected. I don't how you are arguing how the first amendment is talking about more than making laws because there is no basis for that inference especially when reading the text.[/quote] no, its completely fine for a politician to endorse religion, its his right to but having an institutionalized prayer to jesus christ is the state endorsing religion [quote]The recent view of separation of church and state really has only come into play since the 1950's and is somehow arguing that there can't be anything religious on public property. There is nothing in the constitution to support and the interpretation you've been told is not at all accurate as far as the intention of the first amendment. Historically and textually there can be no argument made to say that the first amendment prohibits religious activities on public property. Please provide a good and specific arguments if you still disagree so I can prove you wrong on the points you make.[/QUOTE] separation of church and state is something that was first said by jefferson, and it means the exact same thing as the 1st amendment basically separation between church and state means that the state cant spend money or actively attempt to endorse religion in any way, whether that means teaching it in schools, or spending money to maintain a religious statues etc. on public property [editline]23rd May 2011[/editline] most people dont argue with the right of the individual to practice religion on public property, someone is allowed to pray in a courthouse or whatev its about the state as a whole endorsing these things

You are correct and I agree what you are saying but I disagree that a prayer at such a event as describe in the story is a violation of the first amendment because it isn't state endorsed religion. It would be far better to see it as individuals of the state promoting a religion. I'm glad you brought up Jefferson because that's where the notion of such practices being unconstitutional, but the historical evidence and wording make it clear that the intention of the first amendment is not to prohibit individuals in government from endorsing a religion, but rather to prevent the government's legal and executive ability from having anything to do with religion. The congress does not have any power to endorse or condemn any religion, but the individuals in congress do but only on a scale to which any other individual can. I agree that it would be best for there not to be any prayer in any government event, but I do believe they are given the right to do so as a group of individuals. There is a big emphasis on law and that is because those are powers congress has. I was kind of assuming you were arguing that prayer shouldn't be allowed on public property which is becoming a more frequent argument and Jefferson is often quoted to support that.

[QUOTE=Pepin;30011843]You are correct and I agree what you are saying but I disagree that a prayer at such a event as describe in the story is a violation of the first amendment because it isn't state endorsed religion. It would be far better to see it as individuals of the state promoting a religion. I'm glad you brought up Jefferson because that's where the notion of such practices being unconstitutional, but the historical evidence and wording make it clear that the intention of the first amendment is not to prohibit individuals in government from endorsing a religion, but rather to prevent the government's legal and executive ability from having anything to do with religion. The congress does not have any power to endorse or condemn any religion, but the individuals in congress do but only on a scale to which any other individual can. I agree that it would be best for there not to be any prayer in any government event, but I do believe they are given the right to do so as a group of individuals. There is a big emphasis on law and that is because those are powers congress has. I was kind of assuming you were arguing that prayer shouldn't be allowed on public property which is becoming a more frequent argument and Jefferson is often quoted to support that.[/QUOTE] its a whole different case when its actually government time and resources being spent for that prayer how much money are these guys paid to lead the prayer? are they paid for out of the pockets of individuals in congress or the state itself? not only that but time that could be spent doing the job they were elected to do, is instead spent on listening to the guy pray, and in this case a second prayer from a different guy, and then time spent debating and whining about it that violates the first amendment because it is money and time being used on the endorsement of religion [editline]23rd May 2011[/editline] and in this case it wasnt even a non denominational prayer because the guy clearly said the prayer was to jesus christ