1 posted on
05/29/2004 5:18:01 PM PDT by
Maria S
To: Maria S
Those "gay" people are mighty touchy.
2 posted on
05/29/2004 5:24:02 PM PDT by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
To: Maria S
|
|
So...does this also apply to "butt monkey"? |
3 posted on
05/29/2004 5:25:12 PM PDT by
Fintan
(Seriously...does my hair look all right?)
To: Maria S
Excellent! A good strike against PC:
By simple logical extension, all the synonymic expressions, previously thought of as derogatory, now are to be seen as OK.
4 posted on
05/29/2004 5:25:33 PM PDT by
GSlob
To: Maria S
I thought calling someone a homosexual was a complement. All us heterosexuals are nothing but knuckle draggers.
9 posted on
05/29/2004 5:34:46 PM PDT by
fhayek
To: Maria S
So, just guessing here and based upon her rationale, when we call Judge Nancy Gertner a "Bull Dyke," what the heck, that ain't insulting either.
To: Maria S
She pointed to a Supreme Court ruling last year that found a Texas sodomy law unconstitutional, and to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling last year that it would be unconstitutional to prevent gays in the state from marrying. More unintended consequences of the Lawrence decision. (Or maybe not so unintended!)
18 posted on
05/29/2004 5:50:53 PM PDT by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
To: Maria S
If a guy doesn't have a right to take offence at that-just what the hell are we justified in taking offence at then????
25 posted on
05/29/2004 6:19:58 PM PDT by
F.J. Mitchell
(Every functional brain in America is a threat to Kerry's Presidential aspirations.)
To: Maria S
Slander I (sort of) understand (though in my mind being called a homosexual would be pretty sladerous). But not libel...
If I'm NOT gay, and you publish an article or book stating that I AM get, THAT is libelous because it IS A LIE.
Legal Beagles: what am I missing??
To: Maria S
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner came as she threw out a lawsuit by a former boyfriend of pop singer Madonna who claimed he was libeled because his name appeared in a photo caption in a book about Madonna - under a picture of Madonna walking with a gay man. Did the caption in fact misidentify the man in the photo? If so, why would this count as a libel rather than an error?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson