Gays will have their cake, and eat it too. Supreme court decision.

Its more than JUSt religion.

 

Did you really think their BS was going to end with 'gay marriage?' Now it's freaks using whatever bathroom they want.

Can't imagine what's next.

 

How important that license is to the county or state is for it to determine. It just must not treat same sex parties differently. The above are potential changes in policy that any state or county are free to consider I am also fine with retaining the current set-up firing an employee who refuses to provide the services described in their job description if the clerks office says it will provide them. I just don't care why the employee seeks special accommodation.

 

I'm not allowed to have or express an opinion. Gotcha.

- - - Updated - - -

Polygamy. Then voiding age of consent laws.

Pandora's Box.

 

Yeah it's "tyranny" to allow gays to marry

Gimme a break, the only tyranny was that of religious folks in public position forcing their morality on others.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes we know, the GOP doesn't have time to figure out what to do about shootings but they sure have time for a detailed plan on where folks can pee.

 

Are you actually going to suggest that same sex oriented persons haven't been on the receiving end of discrimination for the sole reason of their orientation???

And, no, employers (including the state) should have no requirement to hire a second employee to cover the tasks that some current employee refuses to fulfill.

Discrimination isn't a "political problem".

The case before the courts was not a civil law case - it involved discrimination in public law.

 

I'm going to suggest that it's flimsy to call an orientation a "class" of people. Again, by that standard, anyone can be a class. It's logical for example, to have protections for disabled people, since they are a class of people who are vulnerable. Orientation is not a "class". Some people may naturally incline to lean one way, but I also think choice has its factor(whoever said it had to be one or the other were lying to themselves.)

Should these people be discriminated against? Of course not. But to call it an "orientation" was only for the purposes of including them. They would have been better to write "All persons". And why not? Presuming that Gay Marriage were this big boom, having a secondary market would more than cover the costs of the extra clerk.

Here's the real reality: We're expected to make "exceptions" and to accommodate those who are "unprivileged" in the Liberal Social Theorem. But, this "compassion" of yours disappears when you have to accommodate the ones giving the accommodation. It's apparently too much for modern day America to work out a compromise!

As a result of this ultimatum, no one wins and everyone loses. Because It HAS to be that way.

And PS. There's nothing "public" about it, except the "government"(case worker's) stamp of approval. It has literally .01% of government involvement. Annexing government from the process would literally change nada. Maybe once upon a time it had its significance, but with tax rates higher against married couples, no one can honestly say the "benefits" exist.

The entire thing, is an anarchic, old machinery used for forgotten times.

 

About as happy as they would be about a black man as President, a woman running for president, or minorities voting.

 

Obama isn't black

I fail to see your logic..

What does trannies have to do with women and minorities

 

Just pointing out that rich white Conservatives from an era where anyone no n-white was seen as subhuman and women were barely more than property, probably aren't good standards for morality.

 

I've never met a white person who thought black people are " sub human"

Where are you hanging out bro?

You must be confusing white people with your beloved Muslims

 

We are talking about the Founding Fathers are we not?

 

Oh your saying the Founding Fathers of America were rich white racists?

OK

If you hate America so much why are you here?

 

The Founding Fathers were rich white racists.

You don't have to like the Founding Fathers' personal morality to like America. And we have spent more than 200 years correcting American law to make up for their utter failure to be decent human beings.

 

Thats what you Marxist believe huh..

Interesting

Why not move to a country that is more friendly to your Marxist values

 

Just to be clear, you believe that a man who not only owned slaves, but raped his slaves and fathered children on them is someone who we should look up to morally, yes?

 

I think we are done talking.

Good luck

 

Translation: I can't defend the immorality of the Founding Fathers but admitting to that would mean admitting that my statements about "Marxists" being the only ones opposed to the Founders' morals is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) too.

 

No

Someone who believes like you do and spits on my Founding Fathers Graves is not someone I want to speak to in any format, ever.

Marxists like you are responsible for 30 MILLION murders worldwide.

You hate America, you hate America's founding fathers and spit on their memories, you hate the brave Americans who spilled blood so people could live free from Marxist like you.

You are full of hate...

Just not worth my time to acknowledge you in anyway any longer...

 

1. I'm not a Marxist.

2. Are you a moral relativist? Why can't you call out immorality where it is?

Do you dispute that owning slaves is wrong? Do you dispute that raping slaves is wrong?

 

Couldn't Christians go into gay bakeries, ask for an anti gay bible verse printed on a cake and then sue when they refuse to make it?

 

No. That would be a form of compelled speech. Making a wedding cake, however, is not compelled speech.

Get back to me when you can find a case in the USA where a gay couple succeeded in compelling a Christian baker to make a wedding cake with an anti-Christian saying on it.

 

why would i need to do that?