Search results

I did read it all. You posted basically the entire abstract and then a link to the abstract. You want to pay $45 for whole thing then go ahead but what you posted doesn't support your position. It supports mine.

Answer my question Itzena.

I was stating my views on the specific topic in regards to that as a stand alone issue. My view was not based upon supporting my position on another issue. Hodj however is clearly being a retard on the issue in order to support his position on a entirely different issue.

And where exactly does it say every homosexual they tested had these genes?

No your evidence supports a genetic link in some cases to homosexuality not a link in all cases. What you posted supports my position not yours. So there the link you posted is the evidence you requested I provide.

Where is your evidence? Moonbat was at least very convincing in passing his views off as not trolling but being his genuine views. You on the other hand are just clearly trolling.

No Hodj is moonbats and you are Itzena. Now a question do you agree with Hodj that all homosexuality is determined by genetics? Not that some people are homosexual because of genetics but that there are no other causes for Homosexuality other then genetics.

You have just hit full A moonbat level of retardation enjoy the the few moments of time you have left on these boards because you will be gone soon.

Dude you're a idiot if you disagree with what i just posted. Now go find one single fucking person that has posted a peer reviewed article that believes all homosexuality is based upon genetics. I doubt you will find a single one that would disagree with what I posted.

Sexual Identity is determined by many different things both genetic and social, plus a long list others potential factors as well. You can be gay because genes are you can be gay because you wanted to be based upon life experiences. One person maybe Gay because of genes and another person may...

I know some f you asked about what if it was a Muslim bakery.

You don't seem to understand the difference between libertarians and anarchists. What you said was not a libertarian position at all it was a good example of the basic dividing point between libertarians and anarchists.

Also known as acting like a retard by making absurd statements and then attributing them to your opponents when you know it has no basis in fact.

So what your saying is you were only acting retarded?

No like your hospital analogy just plain wrong. No libertarian supports that.

Naw if you don't want to sell to them I'm fine with that on a legal level. That doesn't mean I support you bigotry on a personal level just your right to be one. Oh and stop making the stupid hodj hospital argument that no one in this thread has ever supported.

Nice try at avoiding issue and post a zero content post.

Ok you dumb fucks me bringing up that case was in regards to this statement by hodj. Pointing out the new mexico case based upon state law not federal law. Please stop making idiots of yourselves.

So you just really don't understand how constitution and supreme court work at all do you?

Really is that all you can come up with?

No the entire ruling in new mexico case was based upon state law. You were the one implying that states could not alter there laws if they so chose because of federal law/Constitution has no support in that case. that case is what started the ball moving that led to the recent Indiana law...

That staement would apply to most of people on this board.

Nice opinion but you have but you do actually need get a supreme court ruling saying so for it to be true. As court left it there was no ruling on federal level and states are free to alter there state laws as they see fit.

You missed the point where the people you disagree with don't give a fuck what you think on the matter because you're wrong.

Yes the case was based upon state law not federal law so if the people of new mexico want to alter those laws then it is within there discretion to do so.

The protection in regards to forcing a business providing services is based upon civil rights laws and being a designated protected class not upon the Constitution. If A business want to put up a no democrats are republicans served sign they would fine doing so constitutionally.

Did you miss the link about the wedding photographer and supreme court refusing the case because it was a state law issue?

All fine and good up to the point where you say people of Indiana don't have right to change there laws.

Yes that's right they weren't however used to force people to make certain kinds of cakes until recently. You have a extreme paranoid streak by the way you seem to think all civil rights laws will be abolished and people will be left to die on operating room tables if some antiquated laws are...

Anti descrimnation laws were not used to force people to make anti gay wedding cakes until recently. when people started abusing these laws at the state level it started a movement to change them in order to reduce government regulation. In the case of regulating abortion clinics it is the...

You support existing anti discrimination laws that force people to provide services to those who they disagree with while opposing government safety regulation upon abortion clinics. In other words your willing to force a business to make a gay wedding cake while at same time decrying...

All of em.

Government does that all the time. In the case of abortion clinics they at least leave a out for clinics to comply with regulations and stay open.

Where did I ever say I support those regulation. I said government has clearly established the legal right to do so. You know the same government I told I don't like. You guys are the delusional people that don't see the link between government forcing a bushiness to make a gay wedding cake...

I don't hate gay people I hate the government. Really you people are some dense mother fuckers if you havent figured that out yet.

How is any of the above relevant to government imposing safety regulation upon abortion clinics?

Dude stop quoting me if you're just going to ignore what I said right above the part you quoted. And yes government does impose regulations many time with secondary stated and unstated intent to shut down businesses. Casino's, gun stores, bars, liquor tobacco stores, all commercial stores in...

Thread is inherently about governmental power of regulation. Safety regulation on abortion clinic arn't about abortion ether there about safety and governmental power to impose them. I admire the abortion clinics taking a absolutist libertarian stance but they're most likely to lose. The...

Seems like a valid reason to over turn that requirement for that clinic then.

So was it case of being turned down because they don't like abortion are a case of clinic staff not meeting requirements to be given admitting privileges. That if we have a actual case where the clinics tried to getting admitting privledge and were turned down.