Cakegate to be decided by supremes

YOU consider it an insult, not Doof.

 

As explained thousands of times previously, public businesses need to serve the public.

So simple one would think the thousands of previous explanations would have stuck.

 

Like gayballsness, religiosity may or may not be a choice, in part or whole.

 

^ Racist against cake fetishists.

You're killing me here, Doof.

 

Woody Allen would support that.

 

Pretty absurd, after arguing that marriage has nothing to do with procreation, and that therefore the limitation to men and women is nothing but a nefarious attempt to "disparage and injure" homosexuals, that we must, none the less, prohibit two brothers from marrying because if one of them was instead a sister, they might produce offspring with genetic abnormalities as a married couple.

It reveals that marriages limitation to men and women never had a thing to do with excluding homosexuals. That was just a judicial fiction of fact, used to get the result they wanted.

 

Then why do the discrimination laws only protect people against discrimination on the basis of a select few classifications?

 

No one said it was an "exclusive right for gays". That's YOUR words interjected in order to pretend you have a valid point. He said

"those who choose to have some gay-sex and live that lifestyle are provided special protections and accords"

 

You responded!

 

Spectacular.

 

Nefarious rainbowfascisthomoeroticterrorconspiracy?

 

Marriage has nothing to do with sex, it is equality issue.
Marriage is a collection of benefits that related couples are capable to receive.
Are you against equality but for special rights for Gays?
That is what I thought

 

I am not familiar with incest law, but have not seen a single argument in support of incest. Are you attempting to draw a connection between equal rights for gay people and incest?

I still have not heard one real example of a right that is exclusive to gay people. Maybe because it doesn't exist.

 

I think he is contrasting equal rights for everyone as opposed to special treatment for the benefit of gays. And I don't think "incest", sex between closely related people should be legal, but certainly now with gay marriage, there is no justification for excluding closely related couples from marrying other than a desire of unequal law by design for the benefit of gays.

Yeah, you done slayed the hell out of that strawman. You can let it go now.

 

I really don't like putting people on ignore but this is the second or third time you have purposefully suggested I am some kind of homophobe. Not appreciated. Goodbye.

 

you are correct. If special privileges are now metered out to sexual deviants, then it must be for all sexual deviants including pedophiles, necrophiles, incest etc

Or, we can simply return to common sense and treat sexual deviancies for what they are, a mental illness.

 

I never suggested that and don't see how a reasonable person could extract that from what I posted.

Yet you were unable to name one single special privilege/right/protection exclusive to gay people.

 

Three things.

First, religion is rarely a choice, you are usually brainwashed into it from childhood. Just like atheism is rarely a choice, you just find that god claims are unsupportable.

Second, check out your churches position on predestination. You just may be committing heresy thinking christianity is a choice.

Third. Religiosity may be genetically predisposed. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7147-genes-contribute-to-religious-inclination/
Not to any one religion mind you. Does not make religion true, merely useful in protecting in some mental problems.

Still does not give special rights to the religious to discriminate.

 

Gay marriage is a special right.
Relatives that live together are excluded from getting 1000 marriage benefits even though they 100 % identical to gay couples.
Sexual activity is irrelevant.

 

Try again. It is the same right enjoyed by hetero couples. Neither side marry their close relatives.

 

Einstein Married his cousin, I have no issue with that, do you?

as long as they are two consenting adults, who cares

 

No, I have no issue with that.

 

Inequality by design

 

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/...ouple-says-cake-in-question-is-not-yet-baked/

Would of thought hell freezing over would occur before such a decision came from California.

 

This judge came to a not invalid conclusion with wildly illogical reasoning, but due to the manner in which the baker initially resolved the request for service, the plaintiff's paths to the larger equities sought appear limited.