Gay marriage is adult's pretending

But since polls show that over 50% of Americans are just fine the term "marriage" including gay marriage - it could also indicate that it is YOU who are trying to hijack it's meaning.

 

I can't be at fault, for the fact that you cannot accept that others have a view that isn't 'yours'.

We disagree, and that's all there is to that.

 

Agreed.

When it is all said and done, you will see that our views should have been the same.

 

Percentage of people who support SSM

View attachment 40200

As can be plainly seen support for SSM is, and has been growing for some time.

So in reality it is the people who refuse to accept what the majority consider marriage to mean who are disregarding others.

 

That is exactly what you trying to do, to prosecute Muslims who refuse to sell traditional Christian food and vice versa.
Wedding cake has special meaning for some people.
You however reject that idea and want them to be severely punished for not following your insane inventions like gay marriage.

 

I suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension as nowhere do I even suggest what you are asserting. ... furthermore what you have written is completely irrelevant to what I was responding to.

Which is irrelevant, wedding cake has absolutely zero relevance in a religious context ergo it cannot be claimed that that religious freedom is the reason for the refusal.

I don't reject the idea at all, it is simply irrelevant.

 

Your problem is that you refuse to believe that some people are not homosexual.
you can't believe that people might do not accept your reality
Wedding cake is a symbol of wedding and wedding is a celebration of union of one man and one woman.
Why should people in democratic society should be suffering for not following special orders from homosexuals?

 

Your problem is you can't accept that there are definitions of things that don't comport to your definition of what those things should be. You apparently can't accept that gays and lesbians exists. You also can't accept the fact that the secular institution of marriage has been expanded to include the union of same-sex couples. And you can't accept that a wedding cake is just a prop in a celebration of the union of two people.

The lesbian couple in question didn't seek to force Sweet Cakes to make them a cake. They weren't seeking any redress of Sweet Cakes' refusal. They simply complained to the appropriate government authority that they had been treated unfairly. Everything else that happened was at the government's discretion, including the punishment. The purpose of Sweet Cakes' fine is two-fold: send a message to Sweet Cakes' that such future behavior from them is unacceptable, and send a message to other businesses that they may be met with the same fate if they refuse to serve future customers because of the customer's sexual orientation, sex, race, creed, etc. Sometimes the only way to make people see sense is to hit them where it hurts the most: the pocket book.

 

Reality ... is the symbolism you see in a cake? wow.




​

 

That is a l lame attempt to justify government violence.
Bakery never had a problem with homosexual people. It was just a special order that has been refused.

 

Another lie
It was a wedding cake, not just a cake

http://www.freetobelieve.com/jack-phillips
Although Phillips explained that he drew the line at same-sex weddings, he made it clear that he's happy to serve those who identify as(*)homosexual.(*) "If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever.(*) It's just the wedding cake—not the people, not their lifestyle."(*) Unfortunately, even that didn't stop the threats; some activists are advocating violence against the shop.(*)

 

All this nonsense over a wedding cake when half the world is starving.

 

Wasn't a special order. It was a wedding cake - just like the other wedding cakes that bakery had provided other customers. If
the bakery had refused service to people who had been married more than once, I might take their "sanctity of marriage," BS more seriously.
But they did not.

 

That, I think... is an major assumption on your part. Even so, it doesn't mean that a day or a few years from now (we all being human) that our thoughts might not reside on a modicum of common ground.

 

Sensible stuff; very reflective of overall reality. Thank you.

 

A wedding cake is just a cake. You are free to believe it is part of your religion, you are not free to require the law to believe that.

Our laws make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs, but religious beliefs are not a sufficient excuse for breaking those laws. If doing something creates a conflict between your religious beliefs and the laws of this nation, don't do that thing. Don't sell cakes.




​

 

Amen to ALL of the above!!

 

C'mon Man! You know the entire gay community is indeed upset over a word. That's the whole reason they want it redefined. Don't spin it around on me. Da wittle cwy babies feel as if they are secluded.

 

What word is the gay community upset about?

They are too busy getting married- and celebrating being able to legally marry- to be upset.

 

fornication is only performed outside of the confines of marriage.

i'm just saying that GOD strictly reserves fornication to be only between a man and a woman. GOD does not approve of same-gender fornication.

 

What an inane comment and yet again irrelevant, furthermore it is obviously a lie.

Wedding cake is simply a cake served at a wedding, nothing more nothing less. Wedding in it's original form means a pledge, but as with other words, such as marriage, it's definition has changed over time with social and cultural changes. The assumption that weddings/marriges are ONLY between a man and woman is demonstratly false. There are numerous examples of weddings that have not been between just a man and woman stretching back to at least Roman times and probably before then. Nero being just one example, who happened to have had two SSM's.

All you are attempting to do is suggest that no marriage is in fact a marriage unless conducted by an ordained minister, which again is ludicrous.

The only people suffering are those that have the misconception that they can use religion as a mask for their discrimination where as the reality is SSM has zero effect on the event of holy matrimony.

 

So if the same-sex couple in question here were to be married, then they wouldn't be engaging in fornication, and thus would be okay?

 

God mentioned anything to me about it- so I think I will go with its none of my business what two consenting adults do together.

Married or not.

 

I think they're joking?

 

God is silent on all things, you seem to forget that all writings pertaining to God were written by man