Christian bakery wins 'gay cake' ruling from UK supreme court

Change what? The urges, no. No more so than a kleptomaniac can, at least with current medical knowledge. It is possible for the symptoms to be controlled, to various levels of success, such that they do not act upon the urges.

 

As a Christian, I fully agree with this.

 

Having identical genes says nothing about which one's activate and which ones don't.

 

Legally speaking, yes.

 

Victimization can only occur with a person who can legally give consent, if they do so under false pretenses. If a person presents themselves as, say, not in a closed relationship, and then later turns out to be, then the other is victimized because they did not agree to those circumstances. But if you are told that the person is gay and you agree to the relationship then you are not a victim.

 

Which has nothing to do with the point. Environmental events, in and out of the womb, can affect genetics, but they are still genetics.

 

If ever a gay man say such to me, I would have point out that if he closed his eyes with a woman he wouldn't know the difference.

 

The degrading is a subjective value. The drug user is a victim of himself, unless he was involuntarily hooked on the drug, which is a rare circumstances. And in this case, the lying of the pusher is not the same as a person who represents themselves in a certain manner. The information on drugs is out there for the user to accept or reject, once again putting the responsibility on themselves. There is rarely information on a person in general.

 

A gay male and a gay female can mate for the purposes of procreation. One of the biggest misconceptions of sexual orientation is that if you attracted to one sex, then you automatically be repulsed at the idea of sex with the other. Not to say there are not those who are repulsed by such, just that it is not universal. And there are indeed those gays who will engage in the act of sex only for the sake of procreation.

 

Or because that's not what they've become - which is to say, further alienated from their true selves than they were when they were "acting".

Since when is that a synonym for "evade"?

 

Isn't this bisexuality?

 

How do racists legally need to be treated equally by a private business?

 

No. Sexuality is about who and what you are attracted to, not who you are willing to engage in sex with. There are both straight and gay individuals within the porn industry who are willing to have sex with the opposite of what they are attracted to because the pay is sufficient for such. In a similar fashion, a gay man and a gay woman might find the payoff of a child to be sufficient to have sex with someone they are not sexually attracted to.

 

Maybe it's a matter of interpretation on what the over all short sentences conveyed. Mdrobster said that everyone should be treated equally, no exceptions. You asked if even racists should be treated equally, and I answered that, legally speaking, yes they should. Now by that, I mean that the law needs to apply to racists as well as minorities as well as everyone else.

That said, I am a firm believer that between Freedom of Association and Private Property Rights, a private business owner has every right to refuse business to a customer for any reason, whether they are Christian, White, Male, or even just have red hair. Any reason. The law doesn't currently reflect this, but then again, it wouldn't be the first time that the law was written such that it violated rights.

 

Sure, but I was talking about private business. After all, this thread is about a private business.

I am the same, but if Public Accommodation laws are used against one of the 5 racist business owners in the country who refuse to serve black people, I'm not going to shed too many tears.

 

Doesn't "who and what you are attracted to" INFLUENCE "who you are willing to engage in sex with?"

 

No. And keep in mind that while most claim to be sexually attracted to one given sex or the other, it by no means, means that they are sexually attracted to all members of that sex.

With that said, let's say that I am given a chance to earn $1 million to have sex with John Barrowman. While I am not attracted to him sexually, for that kind of money, I'm probably not going to say no. Gilbert Godfrey, on the other hand is probably going to take a couple more million. I don't have to be sexually attracted to them to be willing to engage in the act of sex with them. I just have to not be repulsed by the idea, as I would be with say Justin Bieber, and have sufficient motivation other than the sex.

It's the difference between who you WANT to have sex with, and who you are WILLING to have sex with. Willingness does not enter into sexual orientation.

 

Sure, but who and what you are attracted to does INFLUENCE who you are willing to engage in sex with, it just isn't the ONLY influence.

 

I am going to have to disagree. However maybe the opposite is more in line. My sexual orientation is that I am attracted to women. That said if it come to having sex with a man, it won't be because I am attracted to him, but not repulsed by him.

Sexual orientation is only about attraction, which is why it doesn't change simply because one is willing to have sex with someone opposite that attraction.

 

Then why WOULD you have sex with a man?

 

Your right to free speech does not include the right to force private companies to allow the useof their property to exrcise your free speech. The only thing it does is give you the right to express opinions and views without being persecuted by the government. Facebook and twitter have every right to refuse the use oftheir services to express views they disagree with.

 

If I am being offered enough money, that would be a good motivator.

 

Disturbing!

 

Should a member of an anti-gay hate group be treated equally by a gay shop keeper?

 

If such a thing disgusts you, sure it can be disturbing to you. But it doesn't disgust everyone. There are many men and women throughout the sex trade, who have no problem doing it with the opposite of their attraction. But the overall principal stands regardless of actual subject. You do not have to like or desire a given action in order to do it without protest or disgust.