Supreme Court to hear case of baker's refusal to make wedding cake for gay couple

That's the US. Globally, heterosexuals are the overwhelming vast majority of aids cases.


Sorry

 

And plenty of other bakers. . .
I, for one, will not sponsor stupidity and prejudice. . .so, although I am not gay and have no one in my family who is gay, I will NOT shop or support commerces who demonstrates such bigotry.

 

I was referring to HIV in the US. The majority are men who have sex with men.

 

Which is a meaningless statistic. The overwhelming majority of aids cases are among heterosexuals, so as i correctly pointed out, homosexuality isn't a danger to society or the species.

 

Actually it is your world statistics that are irrelevant to the topic of discussion of the US marriage laws, equal protection and the promotion of homosexuality through those laws. .

 

Why shouldn't a business have the same right as you do?

 

It's as if you purposefully try to derail thread topics.

The poster alleged homosexuality is a danger to society and the human species. I showed this to be laughably incorrect. You chimed in, and were shown to be equally incorrect.

 

You find another heart surgeon.

 

Sexual orientation and sexual behavior are two separate things. I am a straight man. Women are the gender that sexually attract me. However (for example's sake), I a man a porn star and getting paid to do gay porn is quite good. Since it doesn't repulse me, I will engage in the homosexual behavior in order to make the money. My orientation has not changed, I am still straight. Men don't sexually attract me.

Now a real life example. For centuries gay men have been so frowned upon in society, that it was practically suicide to come out. In some cases, they were gay but were conflicted with their religion. Many of these men found women, married them, even had children by them. They sometimes even grew to love the women, but they weren't sexuallly attracted to them. They were homosexuals who engaged in heterosexual behavior.

It doesn't matter the reason. Be it due to a gun to your head, trying to hide, or playing a role. If you engage in sexual behavior with a person of your own sex then you are engaging in homosexual behavior. If you engage in sexual behavior with a person of the opposite sex ,then you are engaging in heterosexual behavior. Your orientation is what is sexuallly attractive to you, your actions are your behavior. Orientation cannot be encouraged or discouraged, but behavior can.

 

To apply the law equally to all is neither encouragement nor promotion. Saction, maybe, up that becomes grey area. You have yet to show any true harm to society or species.

 

Sorry. Didn't mean to confuse you with facts.

 

Where is this mystical "contract"? It's no more real than what the religious believe in, and a person doens't give up his individual rights simply because he offers something to people who are interested in what he has to offer. There's no voodoo or ritual which changes by writing words on paper, much as you believe in the power of legislation to create transmutation.

The religiosity of the statist rivals that of any fundamentalist Christian.

 

Homosexuals couples can procreate, just not with each other as a couple. Given the long history of surrogate fathers and mothers, we have a historical basis to start from, not to mention all the modern methods by which they may procreate. Additionally, I remember reading somewhere that we might be able to take the genes of a given person, out of either a sperm or egg and place it in the opposite. It's a process similar to the one used to clone Dolly the sheep. So it probably won't be long before gay couples can have children that are genetically both of theirs.

At best, it would make it vital to the continuation of that country's citizens, but not the human race. That aside, whether or not marriage is the law, sex will happen. You can make marriage illegal and we will continue as a species. Remember marriage licenses in the US didn't come about until way after the civil war, and was initially an attempt to prevent interracial marriage. Marriage was often a declared affair. If a man and woman came to town and said they were husband and wife, no one asked for documentation, or even cared beyond that. So when marriage wasn't a matter of legal standing for benefits and rights, gays could just cohabitate, as long as they kept secret their sexual activities. But now since it is law, the interestin having the legal status is the legal benefits.

 

Just to be clear, you would support a heart surgeons refusal to provide care if the patients lifestyle did not fit with his/her religious beliefs?

 

No. You are serving other individuals, like yourself.

 

Nor have I ever said anything about gay marriage being absent. Why are you trying to put word in my mouth?

Not always, mostly, and no one has claimed otherwise. There isn't some claim of a homosexual society where heterosexuals marriages never took place. But there have been cultures throughout time that have allowed or even held as equal homosexual marriages

And so where did all of those other words come from which obviously have no root source in the word matrimonium? If that word is the root that determine it all, why didn't it become the root of all the world's languages? Sure, I'm not denying that it isn't the root of all the romantic languages' word for marriage/matrimony. But marriage happens all over the world and not just in countries that speak romantic languages. So unless you can show that all those words derive from those languages' word for mother, your idea that marriage is solely about a man and a woman just went out with the tide.

 

Unless they are attached to an ER, or is paid by the government (government based insurance doesn't count). I did note before that only government and emergency services are the only exception to the rule that both buyer and seller get to choose who they will deal with, and for what ever reason.

 

Doctors have an oath, so cannot walk away in the event of an emergency. Bakers have no such oath.

 

And by and large, Christianity, as far back as the third century A.D., has referred to poly marriages as a "mild form of perversion" and always rejected them.
In light of the thread OP I'm not certain what your point is.You post compulsively yet really haven't established a recognizable view point or argument.

Suit yourselves but the door is wide open now thanks to gay marriage.

 

meanwhile, leftists say they don't support slavery.

 

Actually yes, they do. As do 'transgenders' who are accepted and supported. There appears to be no correlation between acceptance/support and improved mental health.

 

Good for you. The safe and well-fed sure love to posture. I guess it feels like real fighting?

 

In my country, very few doctors/surgeons will perform circumcisions. They literally refuse, if asked. Some Jewish doctors will, but we have so few Jews in this country that it doesn't change much.

Circumcision falls outside of their oath, so they can refuse. Emergency life-saving surgery does not.

 

So if you needed heart surgery and chose a surgeon with the best track record, but are forced to find another because he found out you had a BJ (Sodomy) and wants to use his powerful position to force his beliefs on the world, you would be okay with being turned away?



Its good that this is being tested with bakers.

 

Makes sense.