Cakegate to be decided by supremes

I understand math and physics very well so simple logic is my specialty.
I do not see any logic in your argument.

different are not the same, that is all I know.

 

It's not worth the effort for me to cover the same ground again and again, year after year with the same people making the same, tired arguments and spewing the same old rhetoric. It's beyond boring. I'm getting off this not-so-merry-go-round.

Accepted? Oh, that's a laugh and a half. No, we are not accepted. Not as equals, not here, and not in the 'real' world, either. I'm so done with this nonsense.

 

You think your every argument is original? They aren't.

You don't think we are tired of hearing claims that we are bigots? We are.

There is more than one opinion on issues of public policy and law. There is more than one political orientation as well.

 

The right to shame as a hateful bigot anyone who doesn't buy their arguments that "gay marriage is marriage."

 

Yep you are done because you have nothing to offer other then b.s. from semi illiterate lawyers.

 

Only in cases when law is based on fantasies like in case of special rights for homosexuals

 

Your entire argument is that you and 2% of the population is BORN wanting to live the gay lifestyle. If you can present 1 clear-cut medical test (other than watching you have sex) that you were "born that way", then I'm all for you retaining your special protections and accords.

If you cannot, then be like the rest of us who if we get fired for what we feel to be no good reason, we get a new job. If we ask a baker to decorate a cake with a hunter shooting Bambi, and they refuse, we find a new baker. We do not believe that the govt should force others to support and/or accept our lifestyle choices or else face financial punishments.

 

That's the employment discrimination part of the act. The part that applies to public accommodation discrimination says-

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Sex isn't even included, let alone sexual orientation. All these special rules for homosexuals are from state and local ordinances.

 

You make no sense. Name one benefit.

 

Why do you have to be dishonest and make things up to stay in the discussion? I will post about medical research as soon as you post the special protections you claim are exclusive to gay people. Your efforts to blur my position by moving the goalpost have failed. it is simple; equality! I am all for bakers refusing service for any reason they want, as long as we remove the legal protection for them as well. No double standards, no special rights, no preferred citizens.

As far as your attempt to insult me by insinuating I am gay, you have failed there too. I know some great people who happen to be gay.

 

So you are claiming that the first amendment only applies to gay people? I thought the fishing example was a stretch. It is marriage; look it up!

 

why do you consider it an insult to being gay? I see it no different than if you were a hunter, a marathon runner, a skydiver etc etc. It's simply a chosen activity. As for posting medical research, I asked for a medical test. Any "research" is simply anecdotal as most research is. You observe someone having gay-sex, they claim that they've always wanted gay-sex; conclusion to gays is that they were born wanting gay sex. When people come forward with stories of having left the gay lifestyle then those stories are dismissed because they do not feed the narrative.

 

It sounds like you are almost ready to be honest and admit that there are no rights exclusive to gay people. Were you trying to deceive us or did your claim come from ignorance?

 

Were they serving food on the premises and refused to serve them because they were homosexual?

Creating a specific piece of art with their creative talents that violates their moral beliefs.

You do realize this was not a case of a homosexual walking into a bakery and asking for a cupcake out of the cabinet and the owner saying no I don't sell cupcakes to homosexuals?

Artistic expression.

Being forced to participate in what you consider an immoral act?

Should the black sign maker be forced to create signs and banners for the KKK rally and to go to the event and set them up?

 

huh?

All that you need do is accuse someone of "homophobia" as to why you were fired, or wouldn't write "happy gay wedding" on a cake, and the state govts will penalize the accused. No other lifestyle choice enjoys that benefit

 

Wrong, try again. That is not an exclusive right for gays. Try saying "We don't serve/hire Christians here" and see what happens. Christianity is a choice. (Unless you have some scientific proof we are born religious!)

 

again you are wrong. Nobody denied the 2 people of anything. They could have any cake they wanted or cookies, pastries etc. What they asked of the Christians was to use their artistic talent to put words and decorations celebrating the gay lifestyle. They were not denied from buying anything despite your false assertion.

 

Wrong, Try again. The transaction was with the business entity that sells wedding cakes to the public; not the Christian. Individuals have the right to refuse anything for any reason. Businesses don't.

Maybe the couple asked for something unreasonable, I don't know. Were you able to find what they were trying to order?

 

Marriage benefits are illegal for close relatives even though they live together. Only gays get benefits for something that they cannot explain.

 

they asked something that is absolutely unreasonable. They asked the baker To think as a gay person. They asked him to change his brain.

 

Can you name one of those benefits?

100% wrong. The act of baking has zero to do with sexuality and does not require a change in thinking.

 

If that post weren't so stupid I'd respond.

 

I hadn't thought about this, but you're right. Maybe incest should be legalized too.

 

Thank you - I don't know what I was doing before; I see a New York ruling and one in Iowa now.

The New York situation is bogus - clear judicial overreach - but I can't find a good link on the Iowa story.

Interesting, and I'm surprised conservatives - and non-conservatives - aren't more up in arms over what happened in New York, as it's fairly outrageous.

 

^ Racist against fish fetishists.