Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lazamataz

Granted but they are parsing to apply to a single situation whenever it tickles its fancy.

Like you say, if one follows ‘their’ logic the same law that say I have to bake you a cake should also allow me to NOT bake you a cake.

In a (very) wide sense of the disorder, it would be like me being in the Asphalt Paving business and you suing me for not putting in a Concrete Drive and the court agrees with YOU.

Yes, I may make cakes but I don’t makes cakes with ‘tallywackers’ on them or something like that.

Like Rush says, being absurd for absurdities sake.


37 posted on 09/06/2015 8:22:34 AM PDT by xrmusn ((6/98)"I could agree with you-Then we both would be wrong!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: xrmusn
Granted but they are parsing to apply to a single situation whenever it tickles its fancy.

No question. SCOTUS just made up 'gay marriage'. I see nothing in the Bill of Rights for gay marriage. Should have been a B.o.R. amendment.

Back in Prohibition times, they at least followed the B.o.R.

39 posted on 09/06/2015 8:24:39 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Ok. We won't call them 'Anchor Babies'. From now on, we shall call them 'Fetal Grappling Hooks'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson