Why We’ll Never Bake Your Fake ‘Wedding’ Cake

What it comes down to is that Dumocrats are pro-slavery. They think it is OK to force bakers to produce cakes that they don't want to bake.

They're Democrat pro-slavery scumbags.

 

So if you are taken to a private hospital with chest pains, and the only doctor on call is gay - you're OK with that doctor saying, "Let him die, I don't work on straight guys ..."?

By the way - most of the laws supporting equal protection and business service restrictions were supported by the 60's Republican Party.

 

You are playing semantics, what you do is who you are.

Is bisexuality a sexual preference, or a sexual orientation? I would say it is a preference, not an orientation.

However, you cannot be in a committed heterosexual relationship and a committed
homosexual relationship at same time. Therefore, bisexuality is not a sexual orientation.

I am here to educate you so that you understand my thinking. This is not a question as
to who is ignorant or who is smarter.

Why can't you choose your sexuality? If you can choose your gender, you should respect the choices that people make about their sexuality as you would their sex.

Why can't a gay man make a decision to be straight? It has happened. We know
it can happen. Ignoring that does not make it not possible. You should respect people's
decisions about their sexual orientation and should also look to better medical treatments
the same way we look for better hormones and operating techniques for those undergoing
gender reassignment surgery.

 

sorry you are simply wrong.

Again you are wrong

again you are wrong

No your thinking isn't in anyway part of reality.

Because it is innate.

Except gender is a social construct...sexuality is not

For the same reason someone can't choose to be 6 feet tall if they are 5" 8"

No people decided to have sex differently but that didn't change their sexuality.

No one is ignoring that...but you see even the largest organization created to change gays to straight finally came out and said it was all false.

I don't care who you sleep with, I care when you decide to influence who others should be allowed to marry.

 

A heart attack and a freaking wedding cake are not even remotely comparable. Your logic fails.

Doctors at hospitals are paid by the taxpayers to give emergency medical treatment. Wedding cake bakers are not.

 

like I've said, it does indeed say that, but it doesn't equate into (*)(*)(*)(*)ing thy neighbor

 

Bisexuals don't stop being bisexual though. Nothing changes.

- - - Updated - - -

Monosexuals are exclusively attracted to one sex. They can't just make themselves attracted to someone else.

 

I might also say that slavery and freaking baking a cake are not even remotely comparable, and your logic fails.... Both your and his examples are taking things a little far to the extreme. You aren't required to bake cakes in the first place. You're just required not to discriminate if you do choose to bake cakes.

That said, while I do believe that there is a good place for laws that require non-discrimination & public accommodation for people who choose to operate private businesses, I also believe that it should require a very high bar.... which would most likely not include cake baking... but does include healthcare treatment, public accommodations (i.e. taxis, hotels), law enforcement, and other services required for people to maintain their economic and physical well being. Discrimination of this kind is only a problem if it inhibits people from going about their lives, and there are plenty of options for one to obtain a wedding cake.

 

Correction, newly enforced civil rights.

 

No that isn't a strawman. I don't think you know what that word means.

 

Let's not pretend this civil rights struggle has been going on for years. It was the punchline to a Hollywood comedy a couple of decades ago. Even the liberals in Hollywood considered it an absurd joke. It is not a civil right, because it is not based in the laws and does not remedy a historic pattern of discrimination.

 

Yeah, I do. And still you didn't go back and answer the 4 questions.

 

If sex has nothing to do with Straight Marriage, then why do they need to have Straight Marriage... I think your point is inconsistent. I know you wouldn't ban straight marriage if the couple was not having sex, so it seems to me that if you agree with either your quote above or my slightly modified quote in response, you must agree to both.

 

It's a civil right because it is a right for ordinary citizens.

- - - Updated - - -

What 4 questions?

 

Really? Ordinary?

These 4 questions:

 

Wrong. You are taking the meaning out of context.

I was not the one making that contention to begin with. Go back and read the thread.

 

Well it isn't for legislators, judges or police. Thus it's for ordinary citizens.

So yes.

True

True

True

False

How's that?

Now explain how I misrepresented your argument since you claimed I made the strawman fallacy.

 

You rights may not infringe on others. If the Supreme Court holds commerce to be a right, and that laws which prohibit discrimination are constitutional, then you religious beliefs do not matter. You are not allowed to violate another person's constitutional rights in practice of your own.

 

I've been around and around on this. If you can't follow the logic or the thread
where I have already explained my position, heck, I don't want to just repeat and
repeat.

There is no such thing as same sex marriage and their is not Constitutional right for SSM.

 

My hardbound Webster's Dictionary and my paperback Oxford dictionary says marriage is between one man and one woman.

The 14th Amendment was not about gay marriage or gays would have been getting married in 1867.

 

Marriage in general is considered a constitutional right by the federal government, and federal courts have ruled that states have failed to show legitimate reasons by same sex couples should be excluded from this. Unless the supreme court rules otherwise, SSM is indeed a right.

 

What law says that? There is no federal law that says that. If it were so, you would
have to pass a law, really, a Constitutional Amendment stating that. There is none.

 

It was a ruling by the supreme court, though I can not cite the exact case. They have the authority to intpret the constitution, and they interpreted marriage as being a right. Others righted they ruled on included interstate and intrastate travel, privacy, and protection from pirates in US waters.

The reason this ruling was allowed is because the wording used in the constitution left it open for other rights to be added. It stated that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness were the most important of fundamental rights, but not that they were the only ones. This allowed SCOTUS to interpret the meaning to add many things as rights. Marriage was one that they chose to consider a right.

There does not need to be a law or amendment for a SCOTUS ruling.

 

so your a baker now?

thankfully most bakeries are in business to sell their goods, not force religion on people.....

.