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

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> 
> 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.

No fag float. Get over it.