Re: Federal judge rules Alabama city must allow gay pride float at Christmas parade

On 12/26/2024 3:53 PM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless 
chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:

> 
> 
> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 12/26/2024 9:08 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless 
>> chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 12/25/2024 11:28 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless 
>>>> chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On 12/10/2024 11:00 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless 
>>>>>> chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Governor Swill" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 09:06:21 -0600, "Scout"
>>>>>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/9/2024 8:20 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
>>>>>>>>>> chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>> "useapen" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The ruling required the city to provide at least two police officers to
>>>>>>>>>>>> escort the float throughout the parade.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry, but unless ALL floats get an escort of 2 police officers
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, scooter. The other floats and parade entries are not at risk of being
>>>>>>>>>> attacked
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How would you know which floats are at risk?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Beside, the issue isn't the risk.. it's the DISCRIMINATION.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I mean don't ALL floats deserve a police escort?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why should THIS float get such a special honor?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds like discrimination.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See, they don't mind discrimination, they just want discrimination to 
>>>>>>>>> favor
>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why should low crime areas get police protection?  They don't need it. They
>>>>>>>> don't have crime.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you suggest [sic] a parade float is a "high crime area"?
>>>>>> No, scooter, he's not "suggest" that. But that one float is at *known* 
>>>>>> risk for attack by you and your mob.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please produce your evidence that float is at a "known" risk of attack from 
>>>>> my or any mobs of mine.
>>>>
>>>> The police department already did that. Ask them.
>>>
>>> Apparently they didn't or
>>
>> They did, scooter. The police department is the entity that made the 
>> determination that there was a risk of violence.
> 
> True, but then there is ALWAYS a risk of violence.

You can't prove that, of course. In this case, scooter, the police knew of 
*specific* threats made against the float, and so they denied the float sponsors 
a permit.

> The real question is whether that risk is creditable [sic] and actionable.

*Credible*, scooter, not "creditable." They are not synonyms.

The city *considered* the threat to be credible, which is why they denied the 
organization a permit. That's unconstitutional, scooter.

>>>>> Further if they are in such danger maybe they should stay home or hire 
>>>>> private security.
>>>>
>>>> No, that's allowing you terrorists to win, scooter.
>>>
>>> Well,
>>
>> Another scooterism: empty meaningless wheeze.
> 
> Rudy already inventing excuses to

Your scooterisms are shitty writing, scooter.

>>> then they accept the danger.
>>
>> They didn't get that option, scooter — they were *denied* a permit.
> 
> Which apparently had nothing to do with any threats

It had *everything* to do with the threats, scooter. And it amounted to 
viewpoint discrimination, which is unconstitutional, scooter.