Opponents. How has gay marriage negatively effected your life?

Animal testing before human trials is usually the way. But my beaver is already born, and he likes a lady beaver so I am pretty sure he isnt gay. He could be bi.

 

What about in the case of a two straight men or two straight women? Is THAT a thing outside of a profit motive?

"LBG?"

 

What's the difference between a straight couple and an opposite sex couple?

 

No, definitions of words are NOT subjective.

 

Would you say that they are taking part?

You're a smart fellow. You tell me that this doesn't sound targeted and clearly directly related to the original same sex wedding cake case:

Anyway, can you even come up with just ONE other non-same sex marriage related case? Just ONE! I have a feeling that the only reason you know about this one is because I mentioned it!

So you're suggesting that not one single bride-to-be would be interested in ordering one of his masterpieces? Oh come on now! Just so you know, we're talking about absolute MASTERPIECES such as this:

Yeah, I'm SURE that nobody would be interested in masterpieces like this just because he knocked back some whinging, intolerant gay couple!

In what way does a cake indicate SSM or OSM?

 

You know perfectly well that if it wasn't for same sex marriage being introduced, that couple would not have requested a wedding cake.

 

I won't stop with it because it is a valid comparison. People do not control what hand is their dominant hand. People also do not control what their sexual orientation is. No amount of encouraging sanctioning or subsidizing will increase the number of left handed people we have. No amount of encouraging sanctioning or subsidizing will increase the number of homosexual people we have. That is your false premise number 1.

False premise number 2 is that we have to have a valid reason to allow something. That is not how liberty and freedom work. We do not make any laws that say, "you are allowed to do this". We make laws that say, "you are not allowed to do that" and we need a valid reason in order to make that law. Now, IF your first premise was correct, THEN that MIGHT be a valid reason to restrict SSM. But since that is not reality, it is not a valid reason.

 

I think that my point is more that the primary natural purpose of sex is procreation.

 

No that's not what I am saying. The fact of the case are is they walked into the shop and said, "we want a custom wedding cake for our same sex wedding" and he said, "I won't do that because it violates my religious principles, but you are welcome to purchase any of the cakes I have on my shelves" as which point they did the lawsuit thing. You, me and Chris have all pointed out the fact that Phillips had cakes on the shelf that he was perfectly willing to sell the couple. Poly, on the other hand has the exchange I showed, and indicates, intentionally or unintentionally, that Phillips is a custom order only shop.

 

Yes, why do you ask?

 

What function are the guests performing by doing those things?

 

The gay couple came to the baker. NOT the other way around!

 

You said it, I proved it. If you can't man up and admit to that, that is your problem. But three people have called you on it. What you might have intended to say is not what you said. You outright said that he did not have cakes on his shelves to sell and that he was a custom order business. Those two claims together mean that you stated that he was a custom order only business, whether you intended them to or not.

 

Translation: I was wrong, but I refuse to admit it.

 

This right here shows how the idea of participation in something is subjective. If both of you were doing the same exact thing in support of "the war", Chris would view it as participating in the war, and Cy would view it as supporting but not participating in the war. And honestly, there is no objective absolute to this.

 

Not all the supernatural are ghosts. Maybe they're elves!

 

Still need the female for the donor egg.

 

The bottom line is that some people are not repulsed by the idea of having sex outside their sexual attraction. What motivation is behind it can vary from money, to provide a friend with a child, to simply providing sexual pleasure to one who needs it. Everyone has their reasons and limits.

I left the T and others out because I was referring only to sexual orientation, and not gender identity or anything else.

 

A straight couple implies both people are heterosexual. An opposite sex couple probably is, but it's not a given. A gay man and a gay woman may decide to be legally married and raise the kids together. They would be an opposite sex couple, but not a straight couple.

 

What those definitions apply to can be. Sure the definition of beautiful can be objective, but does not everyone have different ideas as to what things are beautiful or not?

 

To clarify, "equal protection of the laws" means that whatever the law is, it has to be applied equally to all citizens. It does not mean that all citizens have to have the same end result.

 

Because its not applied fairly.

 

It doesn't matter what you or I say. That's my point. What matter is how they view it. A given photographer might feel they are participating if they are taking the pictures on site, but not in developing the pictures, where as another photographer feels he is participating with both actions. You can't black and white it because it is subjective.

No doubt targeted, but it still illustrates my point. Phillips would refuse to do custom cakes for a variety of reason, not just SSM. If a homosexual wanted a coming out cake, he would have refused. His refusals are not limited to SSM. SSM isn't the issue in this manner. As noted, if SSM hadn't come up yet, he would most likely still be in the spotlight for other "breeches of his faith". When the person in question would do the same action for SSM, transgender celebration, alternative sexuality celebration, or whatever, then the problem does not lay with one of those things, but with the issue of whether the business owner should or should not have the right to refuse such business.

Actually no. I had recalled the incident itself with regards to transgender, and when looking it up discovered it was Phillips again. And my brief search was overwhelmed with his case, so I didn't look deeper to see if there were any more reported. And that doesn't cover possible businesses saying, "we won't do that", and the customer shrugging and going off to a business that would appreciate them. Not every incident gets reported or makes headlines. I'll see if I can dig up any other incidents.

There are people who will stick to their principles. I know plenty of people who refuse to go to Chick-fil-A because of the company's donations to anti LBGT groups. They will readily admit how good the food is, and even the service (at least as of when they last visited), but they refuse to go to the store. My husband is one of those people. And he solves his problem by finding a recipe that if it doesn't duplicate the Chick-fil-A one, comes damn close, and makes his own. People will avoid businesses on principle.

By its decorations. That is not to say that every cake can be told as to whether it is SSM or OSM. But if in ordering the custom cake the people ordering it are asking for SSM or OSM specific decorations or words....well a wedding cake with the words Frank and Bob, or with two groom figures on top is pretty obviously a SSM cake.

 

You're still missing the point and I put it out in the previous post. The fact that he would refuse a transgender reveal cake shows that the issue goes beyond SSM. Are you saying that no one would ever request a transgender reveal cake because SSM never came about?

 

What is the primary natural purpose of the mouth; eating or communication?