No one here I know of agrees with me on this.

Post #386,710 by mmoffitt 2/23/14 11:45:30 AM Reply	No one here I know of agrees with me on this. But, isn't this headline a little over the top? Arizona Governor Undecided on Anti-Gay Business Bill http://www.nbcnews.c...iness-bill-n36416 Anti-Gay Business Bill? I didn't know what the bill actually said and given the pro-gay atmosphere of the last couple of years, I didn't know what could have prompted AZ to draft a bill that didn't shout to the heavens the benefits of homosexuality, so I went looking. I found this: DENVER (AP/CBS4) Â A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday. The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple Âbecause of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage.Â The order says the cake-maker must Âcease and desist from discriminatingÂ against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes. http://denver.cbsloc...erve-gay-couples/ Seriously? Pay a fine for refusing to bake some one a cake? I'll ask you advocates of same-sex marriage: Does that mean that having a wedding cake is a civil right, just like marriage? I'm going blind from the stupidity. Then there's this: The state attorney general has filed a lawsuit in Benton County Superior Court against a Richland florist who refused to provide flowers for the wedding of longtime gay customers, citing her religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The stateÂs suit against Barronelle Stutzman, owner of ArleneÂs Flowers and Gifts, came just days after the Attorney GeneralÂs Office wrote to ask that Stutzman reconsider her position and agree to comply with the stateÂs anti-discrimination laws. http://seattletimes....stlawsuitxml.html Holy Batpiss, Robin. Flowers are a "civil right" too? Then I read Arizona's bill. It seems drafted to shield people like the Washington florist and Colorado baker. IMO, the NBC headline should have read "Bill to Protect Business Owners from Frivalous Law Suits Weighed".
Post #386,712 by Another Scott 2/23/14 12:14:20 PM Reply	Public accommodations laws. A person doesn't have a right to have a business. By being given the ability by the state to have a business, the proprietor takes on several responsibilities - including accepting business from anyone who meets sensible criteria that treat everyone equally (ability to pay on time, etc., etc.). A proprietor's religion, or claim of religion, isn't a valid reason to deny someone service. http://www.citizenso.../CRA1964/CRA2.htm This isn't hard. HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,717 by mmoffitt 2/23/14 2:22:57 PM Reply	Are we really that weak? There's only ONE florist in Colorado, right? And only ONE bakery in Washington. I mean, they can't be expected to take their business elsewhere, right? Too onerous, doubtless. If you're all correct about this (whole scale embrace of homosexuality) isn't this something that will work its way out on its own? I mean, IF the majority find it offensive that these two vendors choose not to serve homosexuals (based upon their right of free religious exercise or just because they don't want to) will not the community at large run them out of business? Have we really gotten to the point that EVERYTHING is a Civil Rights issue to be resolved in Federal Court? The lawyers must be ecstatic.
Post #386,722 by boxley 2/23/14 8:39:51 PM Reply	won't sell to blacks natives and rceaga is that ok? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,725 by Andrew Grygus 2/23/14 9:44:03 PM Reply	And don't forget suspected commies!
Post #386,735 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 8:24:58 AM Reply	Actually, I'd be okay with that. I'm of the "You don't want my money. Okay. Somebody else will and I'd rather do business with them anyway" stripe. About the last thing I'd consider doing is filing a law suit.
Post #386,738 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 8:38:52 AM Reply	Nope. Thanks for herring.
Post #386,746 by boxley 2/24/14 11:12:16 AM Reply	either you are a public establishment or a key club a keyclub can have a white only policy no gays allowed. A public establishment cannot. If you can't see that clearly you must hold a view that second class americans can be treated differently with no recourse to the courts. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,753 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 12:44:06 PM 2/24/14 12:44:24 PM Reply	Dupe - ignore. Edited by mmoffitt Feb. 24, 2014, 12:44:24 PM EST Expand All History
Post #386,754 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 12:44:06 PM Reply	I don't think flowers and cakes for weddings rise that high. I mean, just step back a few thousand paces. Do we really want a society that has federal lawsuits over cakes and flowers for weddings? The florist, at least, was apparently NOT treating the gay couple any differently ("long time customers") until asked to provide flowers for a wedding. If that's all it takes to rise to the level of a federal lawsuit, $DEITY help us.
Post #386,756 by malraux 2/24/14 12:49:49 PM Reply	So it's a different in magnitude, not kind? Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #386,760 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 1:01:12 PM Reply	I don't think so. "I don't want to make your wedding cake" and "I don't want to supply flowers for your wedding" are not equivalent, imo, to discrimination against the individuals. Particularly in light of the fact that (at least as concerns the florist) the couple in question could purchase flowers for any other reason. If its discrimination of any sort, it is discrimination against same-sex weddings, not homosexuality per se. I just cannot see that rising to a civil rights trespass.
Post #386,792 by folkert 2/24/14 5:02:54 PM Reply	If they stick to the... If the "vendors" stick to the "I don't want to make your wedding cake" and "I don't want to supply flowers for your wedding" and completely hold their tongue at that, I've really got really ZERO PROBLEM WITH THAT As soon as they trot that "additional part" -- "because you are Gay/Lesbian/Black/Inuit/Chinese/1912-Baptist-Reform/Muslim" THAT is when we gots problems. Learn to bite your tongue and you can be a closet case of Anti-something all you want. Keep your ignorance to your self. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #386,797 by drook 2/24/14 6:20:13 PM Reply	You mean ... You can hold whatever homophobic views you want, just don't keep shoving it my face? :-D -- Drew
Post #386,799 by folkert 2/24/14 6:47:20 PM Reply	Yes... But the simplified version wasn't clear enough. I wanted to be somewhat explicit. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #386,825 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 8:17:02 AM Reply	The baker may have. A lesbian couple went to Sweet Cakes, a Gresham, Ore., bakery Jan. 17 to order their wedding cake, but said they were told the bakery didn't serve same-sex marriages. http://abcnews.go.co...story?id=18922065
Post #386,830 by folkert 2/25/14 9:00:26 AM Reply	These people are ignorant fools. Keep your racial/homo/religio phobias to yourself and wallow in your self-righteousness all by your lonesome. If you serve the public... and are not a closed resource... you get to follow the public laws. What are we... in the 50s where only whites get to sit at the counter? -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #386,812 by malraux 2/24/14 8:59:13 PM Reply	Hmm, nope. If its discrimination of any sort, it is discrimination against same-sex weddings, not homosexuality per se. The proprietor also stated he would not be willing to sell a cake to a gay couple that wanted a civil union or a commitment ceremony, either. At that point it's quite obvious the problem is with homosexuality and not just same-sex marriage, as from a religious standpoint there's no "marriage" involved in either of those two cases. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #386,727 by Another Scott 2/23/14 11:03:49 PM Reply	What's wrong with treating people equally? Should bakers or florists be able to refuse products or services to the mentally disabled? (Maybe they feel uncomfortable around them, or believe they're possessed or something?) How about people who are missing arms or legs for whatever reason? (Maybe they believe that their body has been defiled or something?) Having a license to sell products or services to the pubic doesn't mean you get to refuse to do so because you don't like their hair color or height or number of toes or way they style their hair or shoe color or religious symbols or ... Wrapping prejudice in a bow of religion doesn't make it less offensive and it doesn't mean it's acceptable. Selling a product or service to someone doesn't mean you have to like them. It's not an endorsement. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,737 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 8:38:24 AM Reply	I guess the difference for me was the purpose. If they'd just been refused service for cupcakes or a potted plant, I think I'd be more sympathetic to the majority's view. But this was for weddings. I'd be willing to wager that they "couples" involved here had at least a decent idea that the florist and bakery in question might refuse to provide wedding ceremony props for a gay couple and that is precisely why those businesses were chosen. And why the need for the products was expressed fully. I think that's what makes my butt start to itch. Last week I had a EE buddy of mine say, "You know, I really don't give a damn what other people do or who they do it with. I'm just sick of having it shoved in my face all the time." The attempt to force everyone to embrace homosexuality as "normal" is doomed to fail. It isn't "normal" in any rational sense of the word (affecting at best estimates < 1.75% of the population). Accepting a "same-sex wedding" as normal is not something I think the majority of Americans (and as we've seen, at least two private business owners) will ever think of as "normal." I don't think they should be punished for that. FWIW.
Post #386,748 by boxley 2/24/14 11:16:41 AM Reply	yeah, like shoving that handicapped thing in your face by going around and finding places that don't comply and suing there ass. All those blue sticker bastards parking in front must really get your buddy's goat too. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,755 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 12:45:32 PM Reply	How many handicapped persons got married at the Grammy's? Wanna explain that nexus to me?
Post #386,773 by boxley 2/24/14 2:04:35 PM Reply	how many handicapped at the grammies? :-) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,788 by a6l6e6x 2/24/14 4:17:55 PM Reply	There are some mentally challenged! :) Alex ÂThere is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.Â -- Isaac Asimov
Post #386,782 by pwhysall 2/24/14 3:21:40 PM Reply	Homosexuality is normal, you doofus. There are relatively very few gingers in the world, but they're normal (apart from having no soul). Here's the deal: bigots are having their bigotry legislated against. No-one cares what you think, so don't come the old "thoughtcrime" piffle. This is about what you do, and what you do is treat people in protected classes equally when you're in business. It's totally fine to say "no shirt no service", or "not in those shoes mate", or "sorry, we're totally booked up" (with an empty restaurant behind you), but the second you bring sexual orientation into it - well, tough noogies. You're not allowed to do that, any more than you're allowed to post a sign saying "no blacks no dogs no irish".
Post #386,713 by pwhysall 2/23/14 12:18:08 PM Reply	Replace the word "gay" with "black" and see how it flies And yes, it is exactly the same.
Post #386,716 by mmoffitt 2/23/14 2:16:42 PM Reply	Nice try. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Post #386,730 by pwhysall 2/24/14 2:55:28 AM Reply	Incorrect. But please, do tell how it's OK to discriminate against people because they're gay.
Post #386,736 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 8:29:01 AM 2/24/14 8:42:46 AM Reply	In public institutions, no. Private businesses, OTOH, I'm not too sure about. I was an assistant golf pro years ago. Just off the first tee we had a sign that read, "No women or beginning golfers before 2pm Mon-Fri and never on the week-ends." That could be perceived as discriminatory. But, it was a private club so no litigation ever arose. And certainly no public golf course could have ever gotten away with that. We're talking about flowers and cakes ferchrissakes. If that's a "civil rights" issue then I cannot imagine what would not be a "civil rights" issue. Edit: tpyos. Edited by mmoffitt Feb. 24, 2014, 08:41:28 AM EST Edited by mmoffitt Feb. 24, 2014, 08:42:46 AM EST Expand All History
Post #386,785 by pwhysall 2/24/14 3:50:24 PM Reply	They're not private if they're public. Members-only is one thing. A business where anyone can walk in off the street? Different ball game. It doesn't matter that it was flowers and cakes. You're using that to attempt diminish what has actually happened, which is wrong. No-one's asking you to be gay, or to get gay married, or anything like that. And even if it's "being forced down your throat" (to borrow a holy-shit-you-people-are-so-far-in-the-closet-you're-in-fucking-Narnia phrase), so what? So fucking what? The "normality" of WASP life is rammed down everyone's throat on a daily basis, so a little coming back the other way is bound to be good for you. Vive la difference, and all that.
Post #386,800 by folkert 2/24/14 6:54:17 PM Reply	What about if the door sign is posted... NOTICE: If you fall into one of these categories: -------------------- You have no shoes. You have no shirt. You are Gay. You are Lesbian. You are Muslim. You get exactly this: --------------------- No service. ############################## What would be wrong with that? -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #386,714 by Andrew Grygus 2/23/14 12:23:10 PM Reply	Of course, the Arizona business community has . . . . . come out against the law - they fear broad retaliation for the acts of a very few businesses. A civil right to buy flowers? If you allow being denied for being gay, you must logically allow denial for Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, Inuit, Indians and persons from Blue States, etc. etc - and, if you allow this for flowers, you must logically allow it for all other businesses as well. Welcome to 1895.
Post #386,757 by drook 2/24/14 12:55:18 PM Reply	Here's the probolem (goining meta) Right from this first post you sound like the kind of person who has made up their mind and is just looking for people to argue with. -- Drew
Post #386,759 by Another Scott 2/24/14 12:58:57 PM Reply	Unpossible!!11
Post #386,761 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 1:06:01 PM Reply	Heh. Actually, I knew I was going into the lion's den with steaks around my neck. I never was able to follow the reasoning behind the majority here who were proponents of "marriage equality." I was genuinely curious as to what the reasoning behind the perceived legitimacy to the two lawsuits I referenced was. And I've been around this board long enough to know that someone would articulately explain the reasoning. Which they did, and I "get" now, but continue to reject. ;0)
Post #386,767 by crazy 2/24/14 1:18:52 PM Reply	Is it ok for a waiter in a restaurant to refuse a request? A couple trudging along in the middle of the night finds the only open diner in a desert town. No other place open that they can get to. They are hungry, have money, and want to eat. Is it ok to bar the door to them because the waiter has a "sincere" religious conviction that what they are isn't "normal"?
Post #386,769 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 1:41:38 PM Reply	That's not the case here. Here's a better analogy. A couple trudging along in the middle of the night finds the only open diner in a desert town. They are eloping and want to have a wedding and want the diner's kitchen to act as caterer for their nuptials. They have money. Is it okay for the diner to decline?
Post #386,793 by crazy 2/24/14 5:21:39 PM Reply	and your answer is?
Post #386,828 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 8:38:58 AM Reply	I'm not a fan of Compulsory Participation in Rituals. ;0)
Post #386,831 by folkert 2/25/14 9:01:50 AM Reply	It is not a ritual. You are very close to the same kinds of issues faced in the 50s by blacks. Come on... open up your mind a bit please. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #386,896 by crazy 2/25/14 6:56:23 PM Reply	Who invited participation? You are a vendor with a price list. Provide the damn cake / flowers / napkins, etc, and get the f out.
Post #386,765 by Another Scott 2/24/14 1:18:03 PM Reply	Judge's ruling. http://www.aclu.org/..._cr_2013-0008.pdf Complainants and Counsel in Support of the Complaint contend that because there is no dispute that Masterpiece Cakeshop is a place of public accommodation, or that Respondents refused to sell Complainants a wedding cake for their same-sex wedding, that Respondents violated § 24-34-601(2) as a matter of law. Respondents do not dispute that they refused to sell Complainants a cake for their same-sex wedding, but contend that their refusal was based solely upon a deeply held religious conviction that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and was not due to bias against ComplainantsÂ sexual orientation. Therefore, RespondentsÂ conduct did not violate the public accommodation statute which only prohibits discrimination Âbecause of . . . sexual orientation.Â [...] At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public. 2 The most recent version of the public accommodation law, which was amended in 2008 to add sexual orientation as a protected class, reads in pertinent part: [...] Nor is the ALJ persuaded by RespondentsÂ argument that they should not be compelled to recognize same-sex marriages because Colorado does not do so. Although Respondents are correct that Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriage, that fact does not excuse discrimination based upon sexual orientation. At oral argument, Respondents candidly acknowledged that they would also refuse to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for a commitment ceremony or a civil union, neither of which is forbidden by Colorado law. 4 Because RespondentsÂ objection goes beyond just the act of Âmarriage,Â and extends to any union of a same-sex couple, it is apparent that RespondentsÂ real objection is to the coupleÂs sexual orientation and not simply their marriage. Of course, nothing in § 24-34-601(2) compels Respondents to recognize the legality of a same-sex wedding or to endorse such weddings. The law simply requires that Respondents and other actors in the marketplace serve same-sex couples in exactly the same way they would serve heterosexual ones. Claims of religious belief doesn't trump the law. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,768 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 1:37:47 PM Reply	Their argument was weak. But so was the judge's. Emphasis Mine. Of course, *nothing in § 24-34-601(2) compels Respondents to* recognize the legality of a same-sex wedding or to endorse such weddings. A reasonable person could well conclude that participating in or providing services for such a wedding would, in fact, be endorsing that wedding. Doesn't the court's ruling, in fact, "compel Respondents to endorse such weddings"?
Post #386,770 by Another Scott 2/24/14 1:55:13 PM Reply	No. It compels them to treat them like any other customer. People understand that just because a 7-11 sells some bikers in Hell's Angels a case of Pepsi doesn't mean that 7-11 "endorses" Hell's Angels. This isn't hard. Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,834 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 9:57:17 AM Reply	That's a little disingenous. Are you really equating selling a case of soft drinks with creating a wedding cake and/or providing flowers for a wedding? I'm exhausted. Rand's Sullivan post (albeit demeaning in some respects) is a pretty good summation of my position. No one should be compelled to participate in anything they don't want to participate in. It's funny that some who purportedly advocate the position of "live and let live" are the very same folks who do not want to allow those who disagree with them to do the same.
Post #386,837 by drook 2/25/14 10:20:45 AM Reply	Please enumerate all the services that represent endorsement Your position (now that you've been challenged at least three times to replace "gay" with "black" in your statements) seems to be that some services represent an endorsement, while others do not. That's the only sensible reading of your question. So ... please provide a detailed list of all services that represent an "endorsement" and can therefore legally be denied to gays? If you can't provide a detailed list of all "privileged" services, then explain the criteria. -- Drew
Post #386,839 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 10:26:46 AM Reply	There's a reason why I didn't take the bait. Race != sexual orientation. Good try, though. I'd say active participation in an event is endorsement of that event. Like baking the wedding cake, supplying floral arrangements or taking wedding pictures. Even as the courts rule otherwise, at least one Justice was given pause. Justice Richard C. Bosson concurred with the majority opinion, but uneasily. ÂThe Huguenins are not trying to prohibit anyone from marrying,Â he wrote. ÂThey only want to be left alone to conduct their photography business in a manner consistent with their moral convictions.Â Instead, they Âare compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.Â ÂThough the rule of law requires it,Â Justice Bosson wrote, Âthe result is sobering.Â http://www.nytimes.c...eremony.html?_r=0
Post #386,840 by drook 2/25/14 10:44:58 AM Reply	Why? How is race different from sexual orientation? You tried to walk back from "abnormal" to "atypical". By most accounts about 10% of the population is homosexual. (Though in fairness gender isn't a binary position, but let's simplify.) American Indians make up less than 1% of the population of the U.S. That's pretty atypical. Can I refuse service to them? But back to my original question: define "active participation". * Officiating * Taking pictures * Playing the organ * Renting the facility * Delivering the cake * Baking the cake * Selling flour to the cake shop * Milling wheat into flour for the cake shop * Growing wheat to be milled into flour What exactly constitutes "active participation"? Before you say that's ridiculous, do you really believe that if you got your way, deep in the bible belt "the gay bakery" wouldn't find it hard to buy supplies? And remember that every time someone asks a direct question and you answer something else it reinforces the appearance that you have your answer and you're fishing for a justification. -- Drew
Post #386,843 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 11:24:12 AM Reply	10%? Update your stats. It's more like 1.7% Drawing on information from four recent national and two state-level population-based surveys, the analyses suggest that there are more than 8 million adults in the US who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, comprising 3.5% of the adult population. In total, the study suggests that approximately 9 million Americans Â roughly the population of New Jersey Â identify as LGBT. Among adults who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, bisexuals comprise a slight majority (1.8% compared to 1.7% who identify as lesbian or gay); http://williamsinsti...-and-transgender/ I gave you three examples. I'd also include officiating (obviously) and playing the organ from your list. I didn't try to "walk back" from anything. I tried clarifying what I meant (I had this very same problem with the word "deviates" before). I think in the Deep South if the "gay bakery" found it difficult to buy supplies there are more than ample legal remedies for that. Again, I'm not advocating the refusal of service wholesale, only the refusal of services which provide at least a tacit statement of approval of a particular event: what I've called (probably inappropriately) "active participation." I'm still not taking the race-baiting question. As concerns your American Indian question, suppose you own a bakery and they want a cake depicting Custer's slaughter at the Little Big Horn which they need for a celebration of Custer's death. Do I think you have a right to refuse to supply such a cake? Yes, I do. I've tried to be as direct here as I could. That good enough?
Post #386,849 by drook 2/25/14 12:09:40 PM Reply	Another half-step back Endorsement -> active participation -> at least a tacit statement of approval What are the criteria? I think in the Deep South if the "gay bakery" found it difficult to buy supplies there are more than ample legal remedies for that. Those are precisely the remedies you want to eliminate. In the example cases the couples didn't ask for explicitly offensive cakes. They asked for the same cakes/flowers as other people get. As AScott already pointed out, civil rights law does not address the nature of the product or service being denied, only the status of those to whom it's being denied. -- Drew
Post #386,870 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 1:54:05 PM Reply	Bzzzzt. Wrong. Those are precisely the remedies you want to eliminate. No, I've no opposition to laws preventing the wholesale denial of services. In the example cases the couples didn't ask for explicitly offensive cakes. That's the whole point, isn't it? The cakes were explicitly offensive in nature to the bakers. As such, I believe they ought to have the right not to be coerced into making them anyway. You believe they should have no such right. We're okay (I think) to agree to disagree on this point. I'll even grant that the law is with you on this point. I won't, however, agree that the law is just. ;0)
Post #386,850 by malraux 2/25/14 12:22:40 PM Reply	Try again. As concerns your American Indian question, suppose you own a bakery and they want a cake depicting Custer's slaughter at the Little Big Horn which they need for a celebration of Custer's death. The bakery in question didn't bother to find out what was on the cake before refusing service. I don't buy that businesses providing materials are participating in the ceremony, either. There is a qualitative difference between someone singing in the choir and someone who won't even be there. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #386,853 by Another Scott 2/25/14 12:40:33 PM Reply	Good catch. Well said.
Post #386,857 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 1:01:53 PM Reply	They did, however, determine what the cake represented and that was the basis of their objection. So, you aren't participating in a Klan rally (or endorsing it) if all you did was build the cross knowing the purpose the Klansmen had for asking you to build it, right? If part of my textile business involves the manufacture of armbands with swastikas I am not condoning or working in a way that furthers the cause of Nazism either, I suppose. I think there is a closer relation to the builders of a ceremony's props to the ceremonies themselves than you're willing to admit. But, that's okay. We can disagree about that.
Post #386,883 by malraux 2/25/14 3:55:20 PM Reply	Already covered that. determine what the cake represented and that was the basis of their objection. They also said they wouldn't make a cake for a gay civil union or a gay "commitment ceremony", so the actual objection was the "gay", not the "marriage". Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #386,842 by Another Scott 2/25/14 10:53:54 AM Reply	Having a business isn't a right. That's where you're going off the rails. If you have a business, you have to treat members of protected classes equally. Full stop. If you don't like it, then don't have a business. If you don't think gays should be a protected class, that's a permissible (though mistaken IMO) opinion to have. But that's not the question in these cases. The question is - Should a business be able to discriminate against a protected class for claimed religious reasons? The answer, clearly, is no. If you don't like gays being a protected class, then work to get the public accommodations laws changed. Don't claim that your poor fee-fees trump the law. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,845 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 11:40:04 AM Reply	But Free Speech is. So is the free exercise of religion. Both are falling short (in the law) of consumer interests. While I find no pleasure in "being on the side of the churches", I do think that all Americans should have the right to say, "No. I do not want to participate in that." Surely that right should supercede anyone else's right to force a baker to make a cake for any event they deem proper. Let me ask you a hypothetical. I open a tatoo parlor. And, just to add emphasis to the hypothetical, suppose I lost my parents in the holocaust. Should I be forced to tatoo a swastika on a Hindu who comes into my shop? That symbol (to a Hindu) plainly does not mean the same thing it does to me. But you seem to be arguing that what I think about what I am supplying in my business does not matter. So, I'd guess you'd say that I do have to provide that tatoo because, after all, I'm doing business with the public. If that is your position, doesn't that give you pause?
Post #386,847 by Another Scott 2/25/14 11:57:36 AM Reply	Lots of "speech" is restricted for businesses. Again, protected class and public accommodation laws covers a lot. There are lots and lots of offensive tatoos - e.g. http://www.imef.mari...F/EOA/Tattoos.ppt I don't know the details about the laws for getting them. Minors are obviously a different category. It seems to me that if someone is in the tatoo business, they know what their clientele is likely to be. There's a whole subculture about what "artists" will and won't do - e.g. http://www.reddit.co.../comments/1ckq2w/ Tatoos are kinda permanent. No, it doesn't give me pause that businesses have to follow public accommodations rules for protected classes. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,848 by boxley 2/25/14 12:01:13 PM Reply	why would you have a problem with that? since the hindu wanting a what you think is a swastika is no such thing. It points the other way Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,858 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 1:02:35 PM Reply	Is it the Buddhists that had it the same way? I forget.
Post #386,863 by boxley 2/25/14 1:22:04 PM Reply	no, it was the nazi's that flipped it Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,867 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 1:30:24 PM Reply	Ah. Thanks!
Post #386,854 by folkert 2/25/14 12:40:37 PM Reply	"No. I do not want to participate in that." FULL STOP "No. I do not want to participate in that." FULL STOP. Adding in "Because you are Muslim." or Adding in "Due to your being a gay-bay-homo." or Adding in "You are a 1912 Southern Baptist Reformer." or Adding in "You are a Hindu." or Adding in "because I don't serve Spics." or Adding in "you're a porch monkey." or Adding in "eww, you are Yellow Skinner." or Adding in "you are a Skin Head." Makes you a racist hater that has broken the law in equal access terms. If you didn't add those later phrases (or similar ones to it)... you could be a racists hater all you want. Yeah, Mike... you aren't doing well here. Once you realize, Business that is public... is public and constrained by those same things. I'm reminded of a scene from a "A few good men..." In the court-martial proceeding with Judge Randolph: Kaffee: Colonel Jessep, did you order the Code Red? Judge Randolph: You don't have to answer that question! Col. Jessep: I'll answer the question! [to Kaffee] Col. Jessep: You want answers? Kaffee: I think I'm entitled to. Col. Jessep: You want answers? Kaffee: I want the truth! Col. Jessep: You can't handle the truth! [pauses] Col. Jessep: Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red? Col. Jessep: I did the job I... Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red? Col. Jessep: You're Goddamn right I did! Do see what he did there? Even though it was for the apparent "Good of the Unit" it wasn't proper and in fact illegal. You aren't looking at this from a reasonable person's perspective. You are using the excuses. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #386,774 by rcareaga 2/24/14 2:04:42 PM Reply	Gotta give him credit Some people are fickle in their stances, and apt to be swayed by new evidence, but when mmoffitt stakes a position on one of the pressing issues of the day, itÂs all ÂHier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders,Â which certainly makes his motley grab-bag of publicly stated beliefs highly entertaining if less than compelling. Certainly itÂs droll to see him describe the legislation we discuss here as Âa bill that didn't shout to the heavens the benefits of homosexuality,Â which is true in the sense that the firebombing of Dresden signally failed to boost that cityÂs tourist industry or that General Giap did very little during his long career to advance American hegemonic designs in Southeast Asia. For the rest, others here have ably articulated the all the counterarguments I might have been moved to advance, so I weigh in merely to remark on how fiercely mmoffitt clings to these hills—mounds, really—even as the sappers undermine these one after another. cordially,
Post #386,794 by pwhysall 2/24/14 6:06:23 PM Reply	Re: Gotta give him credit Anyone rational would look at this thread and go "holy shit, all these assholes agree with each other and not me? Maybe I need to adjust my own position somewhat".
Post #386,795 by scoenye 2/24/14 6:09:04 PM Reply	You must be new here?
Post #386,796 by Another Scott 2/24/14 6:17:01 PM Reply	rofl!
Post #386,801 by folkert 2/24/14 6:56:48 PM Reply	as AS puts it... ROFL! -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #386,798 by crazy 2/24/14 6:40:28 PM Reply	Actually, he does have a rational viewpoint As least since he probably surrounds himself with like minded individuals, at least IRL. http://www.slate.com...omosexuality.html In my case, I've been assumed to be gay many times. Doesn't bother me. I consider it a compliment when someone says I'm "graceful".
Post #386,802 by folkert 2/24/14 6:58:20 PM Reply	So... that is what they call it... Huh. I have other words for it. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #386,803 by crazy 2/24/14 7:01:32 PM Reply	Unnatural? Must be really scary out there for you :-}
Post #386,810 by folkert 2/24/14 8:53:23 PM Reply	No... It ain't scary for me. I just don't think unnatural is the correct word. Ever heard of something called the uncanny valley? -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #386,817 by crazy 2/24/14 9:25:34 PM Reply	To close to reality, but not Not sure how that relates to this though.
Post #386,829 by folkert 2/25/14 8:56:09 AM Reply	Well... Some people would call what you do as "Close to reality, but not enough and detectable" giving people and uncanny feeling about you... Not quite real, not quite wrong, just something. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #386,897 by crazy 2/25/14 7:17:34 PM Reply	ok, I can accept that Probably the ballet training when I was a kid.
Post #386,898 by drook 2/25/14 7:28:25 PM Reply	So you're light in the loafers -- Drew
Post #386,907 by crazy 2/25/14 9:04:34 PM Reply	I wish Lost my loafers when the house got looted. I loved those shoes. Black dress shoes, comfy, preferred to wear them over my sneakers. And gone. So now I'm light in the sneakers. I walk on the balls of my feet. Quietly. People usually don't hear me coming. And then they tend to freak a bit when I'm just "there".
Post #386,925 by pwhysall 2/26/14 7:45:19 AM Reply	Re: I wish And then they tend to freak a bit when I'm just "there". To be fair, that could just be your face doing that.
Post #386,910 by rcareaga 2/25/14 9:24:45 PM Reply	Re: So you're light in the loafers Many years ago (Reagan was president) I attended a meeting in Baltimore, representing Flatline, Comatose, Torpor & Drowse. The FCT&D guy from Buffalo mentioned that he was working on a project with [female otherwise unidentified]. I conveyed my greetings to [female otherwise unidentified], with whom I'd actually had occasion to swap bodily fluids at another conference some years earlier. I was amused when [female otherwise unidentified] subsequently contacted me to relate that her colleague had described me as "a little light in the loafers, if you know what I mean." She indicated that she was amused as well. lightly,
Post #386,922 by Ashton 2/26/14 6:04:26 AM Reply	The Slate piece is larger in Scale than this smaller topic. (Making it 'meta-' to this more pedestrian argument about the effects of certain mindsets.) It goes to (tries-to and IMO largely succeeds) where the Deepest-repressed Âearz are to be found ... by the spelunking-est shrinks: In Murican men. Have stayed out of this progression until it went its course. Don't mean to pile-on, if it seems the case. I have long held the opinion that the root-cause of many Murican idiocies can be laid on a bunion at the feet of the earliest fucking-Puritans. (And this is unsurprising: the prime characteristic of the -call it- Mindset of Certainty? is acted-out in precisely such a manner): See it: in the condescending/Boolean-tested essays of one marlowe or in a member of that Baptist Church Hatemonger National-icon du jour. In a Universe of Uncertainties/one where the Principle of Uncertaint(ies) Rulez even our physics! an individual's possession-of [possession-By] Certainty ..is impervious, is incorrigible: as it derives from the Emotional brain being allowed to trump the Intellectual brain: with no 'contest' being allowed. Thus, for most Muricans, the experimentation of a nascent human being is perpetually stunted in this culture, a fact I noticed in my several schools, along with the pig-ignorance + hypocrisy [My 'experiments' are OK but ... ... Yours are Sinful cha. cha. cha.] Our porn is further proof: artful Erotica is a rarity in the banal in'n'outs of the popular offerings, alleged to be 'about sex'. More human/humane and advanced cultures--inherently see the Ugly difference 'twixt the two ideas. And laugh derisively at our artless, juvenile hack-work. (Ex: ?? Read some Anais Nin--for just a few examples of pukka-Erotica.) I could give clear examples of the forced-dichotomy of this issue, as it affected relations with a few cohorts, or such recognized as possible peers --from childhood on, but ... too many words. And a digression.) Back to the Scale of this brouhaha--'framed' as 'a legal issue' re. "Commerce": ALL entirely arbitrary constructs, codifications of Puritan-defined 'attitudes' --as must be followed, IF you want to coexist in a Murican milieu, without daily bloodied noses or fists. IMO, Mike's exploration of (an as yet unwritten Sonata and Variations) advancing various rationalizations on 'denial of service', in the service of manifesting Free Will as an individual / within a culture which also demands certain conformities (??) could.. be taken as a certain laudable Effort--maybe even to break the never-mentioned Puritan Covenant? But I don't Think So, thus must withhold the epaulets and Orchid-cluster which that should merit (by my lights--the only ones I can see by.) Nope, this has been a bug-hunt for mere rationalizations, advanced by conflating Principled IssuesÂ with a mere personal mindset towards ..the behavior of others which does-Not coincide with What I Prefer (for Me.) That is my inference from the phrasing and the content of the rationalizations tried within this thread. I admit my bias: the Puritans were nasty (wannabe-) mofos who evangelized from imagined Certainties: the Way You* should look at the world. Period. * Who? amongst this tribe, would dare to reveal-to-self: ~~ Wow.. ain't she a MILF!! Let. Alone. ... Wow.. ain't he a GILF!! I cannot ascribe Mike's 'bias' as self-evident to him and I bloody-well won't judge from that ignorance. All I can summarize with, is: Your Right to 'Be/to Express! Yourself' Ends--where Your disapproval interferes with My ability to be left. alone. by Others of your mindset. Some.. and Way-too-many-Here: rabble with guns. (Once expressed by.. Dear Lord--please protect me from your Followers.) My 2 kopeks. Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
Post #386,933 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 9:58:32 AM Reply	If I have such a bias, I am unaware of it. One of my late father's closest friends was for years a closeted gay man (it wouldn't do in the 1960's and 1970's to "come out" when you were a high school teacher - even in Southern California). He did come out finally, leaving his wife and dying of AIDS a handful of years later. Then in the late 1970's I was arrested for failing to appear for a traffic citation. I was 18 then and taken to LA County Jail. I was terrified and called my then best friend, a bisexual man living with his ex-homosexual lover in Hollywood. He bailed me out and I spent the night at his and his ex's apartment. They had friends (all gay, not that it matters) over and they all tried to cheer me up. Later we went out to a bar (yes, one of those bars). I never felt uncomfortable in such situations. Nor have I ever felt uncomfortable in the presence of non-hetero folks since. I do remember feeling odd about not being hit on (as someone here said) at the bar we went to that night and my gay friends all laughed and said, "You can smell the straight on you." I've heard that, too, from current lesbian friends. I'm not sure if that's a complement, but I've heard it several times from several different people so maybe it's true. With one exception (and it was a business oriented problem, nothing at all to do with lifestyle), all of my personal interactions with gay people have been pleasant experiences. I do not feel hatred toward homosexual people. If I have a bias against them, I'm completely unaware of it and cannot imagine from whence this bias came.
Post #386,935 by a6l6e6x 2/26/14 10:07:23 AM Reply	Re: "a business oriented problem" And in another post you mentioned the continual erosion of "rights". There was a right to work 9 year old boys 14 hours a day in coal mines. Gone! There was a right to have to have indentured servants. Gone! There was a right to own slaves. Gone! Where will it end? :) Alex ÂThere is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.Â -- Isaac Asimov
Post #386,936 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 10:09:42 AM Reply	Indeed. :0) What we need is a strict dictatorship of the People.
Post #386,964 by Ashton 2/26/14 5:04:00 PM Reply	Who (first) said..? "The people is an ass." (Before 'Ass-hat' was coined ... to save words?)
Post #386,805 by crazy 2/24/14 7:34:51 PM 2/24/14 7:41:45 PM Reply	And this is why people FIGHT with you on the issue http://www.cnn.com/2...ex.html?hpt=hp_t1 It's all or nothing. Actually, worse than nothing. This slippery slope leads to imprisonment, torture, and horrible death. BTW: these laws were create due to US assholes pushing the issue: http://www.thedailyb...evangelicals.html You are in "good" company. Edited by crazy Feb. 24, 2014, 07:35:32 PM EST Edited by crazy Feb. 24, 2014, 07:41:45 PM EST Expand All History
Post #386,806 by Another Scott 2/24/14 8:07:32 PM Reply	Yup. Also... http://www.washingto...dodge_t049203.php ItÂs possible the Âreligious libertyÂ campaign is about to hit a big speed bump tomorrow if AZ Gov. Jan Brewer listens to business leaders and even some of the Republican legislators who voted for a religious exemption bill and vetoes it. But itÂs beginning to dawn on a lot of people that the very idea of letting religious ÂconscienceÂ carve out big and self-defined exemptions from obedience to the law sets quite the dangerous precedence. The ProspectÂs Paul Waldman sums it up nicely today: [...] If we grant religious people the kind of elevated citizenship conservatives are now demanding, where the special consideration given to religious practice is extended to anything a religious person does, the results could be truly staggering. Why stop at commerce? If things like employment law and anti-discrimination laws donÂt apply to religious people, what about zoning laws, or laws on domestic abuse, or laws in any other realm? Yup. MM might like to review his old comrades' writings and arguments. ;-) http://www.anu.edu.a...dhomsexuality.htm [...] I want to take up the debate on the side of Marxism. On the one hand to argue that the self-labelled communist states and the Western Communist Parties aligned to them, rather than representing Marxism are examples of the defeat of communism, defeat of the 1917 workerÂs revolution in Russia; and on the other I want to describe the real Marxist tradition, a tradition that offers both an analysis of oppression and the way to win liberation. [5] The focus of this paper Â and the argument carried within it Â will be on the works and practice of the early German and Russian Marxists and their organisations as they are both the source of the original analysis of oppression and provide the most revolutionary examples of the fight for liberation. Marxist analysis of oppression begins with the role of the family, a way of organising human relations that arose with class society as a means of ensuring an orderly transfer of societyÂs surplus wealth within the ruling class (and out of the reach of the labouring classes) and transmitting much of societyÂs behavioural norms, particularly amongst the classes with no wealth to transfer. The oppression of women Â and hence the basis for the oppression of homosexuals Â also coincided with the origin of class society.[6] [...] Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,807 by pwhysall 2/24/14 8:25:16 PM Reply	I'm going to try a different tack I want to live in a world where little gay boys and little gay girls can grow up without feeling shame and fear just because of who they're hardwired to love. I want them to grow up with all the same opportunities for joy and commitment as me. I want them to be able to walk down the street with their loved ones and not receive abuse either physical or verbal, just because of who they are. If you agree with this, then take a moment to consider how the AZ bullshit contributes in any way towards this end.
Post #386,809 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 8:48:41 PM Reply	I don't think it contributes, but I don't think it detracts. Again, we are not talking about the wholesale refusal of service here. Only the refusal of service for one particular event. My rights end at the tip of my nose. I ~~cannot~~ should not be allowed to coerce you into participating in all the events I deem right and proper should you choose to disagree with me. From my POV, that's the issue here: do private parties have the right to refuse to participate in events others determine to be right and proper. Similarly, can a pet shop owner refuse to sell a dog to a family from a culture that considers dog meat a delicacy? In this thread I've been "warned" that the slippery slope I'm on leads to Uganda's laws. I submit that the argument counter to mine is at least as slippery with respect to my pet shop owner as the one I'm accused of being on.
Post #386,811 by pwhysall 2/24/14 8:58:48 PM 2/24/14 8:59:49 PM Reply	again, let's do that 100% valid thought experiment As much as you want to pretend otherwise, homosexuality is 100% normal, 100% natural and so let's replace the word "gay" with "black" and see how it looks. You are going to need the mother of all cites to convince anyone otherwise, BTW. Stop focussing on the specifics of these two events and consider the ramifications of this legislation. From here, it looks like you're wilfully misunderstanding the situation in order to justify your own prejudices. Convince me otherwise? Edit: the Google keyboard is shit. Edited by pwhysall Feb. 24, 2014, 08:59:49 PM EST Expand All History
Post #386,826 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 8:27:54 AM Reply	Don't get hung up on "normal". I'm using that in the sense that normal means "conforming to a regular pattern". That is, characteristic of typical. I mean it in the sense that it's not normal for a 20 year old to have hyperopia. By "not normal" I mean nothing more than "atypical." If it's less offensive, I'll use atypical instead.
Post #386,856 by pwhysall 2/25/14 12:51:29 PM Reply	nonsense Stop trying to force everyone into complying your outdated social norms. Gay is normal. Get the fuck over it. No one is forcing you to have gaysex or get gaymarried or indeed be fabulous in any way. All we want is for people who do want to have gaysex and gaymarriage and to be fabulous to have the same rights and privileges as the rest of us. Your position is one of insidious enablement, quietly giving weight to those who think that it's perfectly fine to discriminate against gays, all the way along the continuum from not selling wedding flowers to beating them to death for not being attracted to the "correct" gender. It is indefensible.
Post #386,860 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 1:12:03 PM 2/25/14 1:16:30 PM Reply	Normal is the wrong word. You mean "broadly accepted." I actually don't have a problem with that nor would I argue that homosexuality is not now broadly accepted. But it remains atypical in the species. All this handwringing of "the reason they don't want to contribute" to an event. To hell with their reasons! I don't care what their reasons are. They should have the right to say, "No, I'm not participating/contributing to this or that" for any damned reason they want to give (or not). Everyone here seems perfectly content to let that right slip away, too. THAT is indefensible. Edit: clarity Edited by mmoffitt Feb. 25, 2014, 01:16:30 PM EST Expand All History
Post #386,862 by Another Scott 2/25/14 1:18:15 PM Reply	Blue eyes are "atypical". Being over 2 meters tall is also. I really don't understand why you're continuing to walk farther and farther out on this plank. :-( Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,866 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 1:30:00 PM Reply	Sigh. The erosion of rights troubles me. It bothers me when a herd demands that everyone follow in their footsteps. Maybe it's because I've tended toward contrarianism since I was 10. But the right of the individual to stand against the herd and say, "No. That's not right and I'm not going along with it just because the majority believes it" has always been important to me. Even if that individual is wrong, he ought to have the right to follow his own conscience in all of his daily affairs. We've apparently legislated against that. And I'm troubled by it. The justices in the photographer's case apparently were convinced that the photographers were genuinely trying to follow their consciences. And the law thwarted them. While I'll have to admit that sacrificing one's convictions for the sake of commerce is the American Way, embracing that philosophy comes at great cost to the individual.
Post #386,873 by Another Scott 2/25/14 2:14:22 PM Reply	Businesses . are . different. There's nothing preventing Mr. Baker and Ms. Florist and Mr. Candlestickmaker from expressing their political and religious views about "others" away from their businesses. Even if that individual is wrong, he ought to have the right to follow his own conscience in all of his daily affairs. Don't you see the giant hole that you've made in civil society when you equate the conduct of a business with "all of his (private) daily affairs"? If you explicitly allow discrimination against gays (as much of this legislation explicitly (or nearly) does), it invites other carve-outs for other 'undesirables'. It's the same way that people who are against contraception have been acting. "Well, I'm not going to serve you because you refuse to sell your daughter into bondage/aren't circumsized/have pierced ears/live on the other side of the tracks/can't read/are a member of the wrong political party/didn't vote for my brother/etc., etc., etc." These public accommodation laws are in place for good reasons. How is a gay couple buying flowers or a cake hurting anyone? How is it destroying civilization any more than being a member of a church different than you? A person hurting others isn't "following their conscience". My $0.02. I think I'm done. Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,876 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 2:57:38 PM Reply	Weddings.Are.Not.People. Where you see "discrimination against gays" I see "discrimination against gay weddings". Those two things are markedly different in my mind. I think you ought not be entitled to the former, but I think you should be entitled the latter. You don't. I do. We're not going to agree and that's okay. Now, I'm done. ;0)
Post #386,877 by Another Scott 2/25/14 3:00:10 PM Reply	(One more thing) Read the judge's decision again. They said they wouldn't sell them a civil union cake, either. It's not about a wedding, its about who the customers were. That's not permitted. You can have the last word. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,882 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 3:52:21 PM Reply	42. ;0)
Post #386,868 by boxley 2/25/14 1:30:49 PM Reply	then maybe find a profession that does not serve the public? We were in Philadelphia MS a few weeks ago. My wife forgot to pack her belt. I remembered a black owned store uptown that had all kinds of neat stuff. I was last there a few years ago. Apparently that business had folded and was an upscale boutique. This is 2014. The 6 white women in the store stared at us like we had 20 foot flames shooting out of our asses. I asked the lady behind the counter if they had any belts. She was flustered and stammered maybe, over there on the wall. My wife said, lets go. You could hear the yapping start as the door was closing. Apparently that is ok because they have the right to act like that. Walmart had belts with no issues selling it to us. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,871 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 1:55:47 PM Reply	No, that is NOT okay. I'm offended you'd suggest that I might think so.
Post #386,874 by boxley 2/25/14 2:34:20 PM Reply	what if 2 gay men went in? I would assume the same reaction why is it ok to do it to them? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,875 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 2:52:16 PM Reply	It isn't. I never said it was. That's wholesale discrimination. Not at all the same thing as not making a wedding cake or taking their wedding pictures for them.
Post #386,878 by folkert 2/25/14 3:08:46 PM Reply	Oh... I didn't kill them officer... the Handgun firing the bullets did. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #386,813 by pwhysall 2/24/14 9:10:54 PM Reply	Plan C How about the flower and cake vendors supply the fucking flowers and cakes, which are for a wedding that they're sure as shit not invited to, and keep their damn fool opinions to themselves?
Post #386,816 by Another Scott 2/24/14 9:22:36 PM Reply	Unpossible!!11 After all, it's a legal requirement that florists and bakers have to supply a human billboard along with their products. http://www.youtube.c...tch?v=MUXKZbQrsh8 (1:56) Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,814 by rcareaga 2/24/14 9:14:00 PM Reply	Sullivan(!) puts mmoffitt's case a bit more cogently ...than he does. I can see the sense in this argument without signing on to the notion that bigotry should enjoy legal protection: I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding Â or anything else for that matter Â if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well. The truth is: weÂre winning this argument. WeÂve made the compelling moral case that gay citizens should be treated no differently by their government than straight citizens. And the world has shifted dramatically in our direction. Inevitably, many fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews and many Muslims feel threatened and bewildered by such change and feel that it inchoately affects their religious convictions. I think theyÂre mistaken Â but weÂre not talking logic here. WeÂre talking religious conviction. My view is that in a free and live-and-let-live society, we should give them space. The rest is here: http://dish.andrewsu...kson-has-a-point/ cordially,
Post #386,815 by pwhysall 2/24/14 9:18:10 PM Reply	Re: Sullivan(!) puts mmoffitt's case a bit more cogently Then all they have to do is say "sorry, can't" with no explanation given. Y'know, in exactly the same way they'd do if they just didn't like your face.
Post #386,819 by boxley 2/24/14 9:46:09 PM Reply	I'm sorry Monsiur, we are booked Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,824 by rcareaga 2/24/14 10:26:52 PM Reply	I'm actually susceptible to the argument that "we're winning." I'm old enough to have been reflexively comfortable with homophobic contempt all through high school, although I only briefly, and early on, had occasion to express this: there was a gay hanger-on in a circle of friends I abandoned after half a year—the poor fellow had to endure routine insults as a condition of sitting below the salt. I can accordingly comprehend, if distantly—working in San Francisco for nearly four decades has largely reset those early prejudices—the squick factor that looms so large in the perceptions of our contemporary homophobes. I think we do better to bypass those hills than to take them: the old attitudes will eventually die there, and will perish feeling increasingly lonely and embittered. cordially,
Post #386,827 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 8:33:56 AM 2/25/14 8:40:38 AM Reply	Thanks. The "coersion to participate in gay weddings" is no more and no less offensive to me than "coersion to participate" in any religious ritual. From my POV, they're are the same animal. Edit: Aside: The air of superiority in your quote is of the same stripe as the air of superiority expressed by Xians when they claim they'll go to heaven while us sinners will go to hell. The embrace of "gay rights" is evolving into a religion of its own. Believers are superior, opponents and/or agnostics and/or people who don't care one way or the other are luddites soon to die off - which is what needs be done. Edited by mmoffitt Feb. 25, 2014, 08:36:56 AM EST Edited by mmoffitt Feb. 25, 2014, 08:40:38 AM EST Expand All History
Post #386,851 by rcareaga 2/25/14 12:26:28 PM Reply	Here's another gobbet of raw meat ...for your necklace: Washington lobbyist Jack Burkman on Monday said he is preparing legislation that would ban gay athletes from joining the National Football League. Burkman in a statement said he has garnered political support for the bill, though his statement didnÂt mention any specific lawmakers who are behind it. ÂWe are losing our decency as a nation,Â Burkman said in a statement. "Imagine your son being forced to shower with a gay man. ThatÂs a horrifying prospect for every mom in the country. What in the world has this nation come to?Â ... ÂIf the NFL has no morals and no values, then Congress must find values for it,Â Burkman said. http://thehill.com/b...ban-gays-from-nfl First they came for the florists and I said nothing, for I have allergies. Then they came for the bakers and confectioners and I said nothing, for I am gluten-intolerant. Then they came for the offensive line, and I was offended. cordially,
Post #386,861 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 1:15:49 PM Reply	Er, what? Not on the same slope, not in the same mountain range, not even the same continent.
Post #386,869 by boxley 2/25/14 1:32:14 PM Reply	lrpd that last sentence Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,822 by boxley 2/24/14 9:59:07 PM Reply	how about a slightly different twist Young hetro couple go to a baker for a wedding cake. Asked where the wedding is being held the proprietor states he doesn't believe in Southern Baptists and thinks they are going to hell and refuses to serve them. Is that OK? If you think yes, why under the public accommodation laws that it is alright? Insert Catholic, Mormon Hindu Muslim for baptists. That is not discrimination? Alo note pwhysall has the best answer, keep yer mouth shut and state you are too busy. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,832 by folkert 2/25/14 9:08:51 AM Reply	see 386792 http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=386792 -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #386,895 by Andrew Grygus 2/25/14 6:43:27 PM Reply	Even Republicans backing out. After thinking about it for a bit - three Republican state Senators who had supported the bill have petitioned the governor to veto it. - Los Angeles Times, Section A6 (dead tree version) 25 Feb 2014.
Post #386,901 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 8:11:15 PM Reply	I think that's due more to the threat of a loss of business.
Post #386,908 by crazy 2/25/14 9:08:19 PM Reply	Good. Let them lose the superbowl.
Post #386,909 by rcareaga 2/25/14 9:16:20 PM Reply	I've reviewed this whole damn thread again ...and it seems to me that mmoffitt has nowhere effectively refuted the rather obvious argument that the baker should then be entitled to refuse to provide a cake for, say, an interracial wedding on religious grounds. Indeed, had the Arizona law under consideration been framed in these terms, I can't help feeling that mmoffitt would never have risen in its defense. Seems to me that the sexual element in the present instance has particularly irritated him. Why is this, does anyone suppose? cordially,
Post #386,911 by crazy 2/25/14 10:24:23 PM 2/25/14 10:28:19 PM Reply	Deep in the closet Way too threatening. ;-} http://www.southpark...out-of-the-closet Edited by crazy Feb. 25, 2014, 10:28:19 PM EST Expand All History
Post #386,912 by rcareaga 2/25/14 10:27:30 PM Reply	too easy I do not attribute homophobic squeamishness to repressed same-sex desires, and advise you not to take such a cheap shot. cordially,
Post #386,913 by crazy 2/25/14 10:39:59 PM Reply	awww, dammit Fine. Maybe he had a best friend in his youth who hit on him, and he's never recovered. Really, there is NO WAY to guess his motivations, since he claims to be non-religious and hasn't given anything obvious to latch onto. Early programming is enough for most guys to end up like him, though, and the slate article was a pretty good description of the all-or-nothing "you are gay" fear that many guys have. He's old, and he grew up in a highly repressed social environment though, so he fits the general viewpoint of his generation. We did too, but we had enough exposure to get past it. In my case I hung out at the RHPS for over 50 showings, and the crowd were my buddies. That was 9th grade. Totally fixed me.
Post #386,924 by Ashton 2/26/14 7:09:12 AM Reply	Hey! I'm 'old' too, mofo But my brain Isn't [yet..] And 'it' recalls the quite early-on dismissal of most of the BS-'lore': outright! I mean: as presented/in the usual BS-sessions. And at some point--in the Instant it was 'imparted'. I can't be alone in having observed the Double Standard In. Action. {{Live}} Ex: Little Suzy lets Timmie inspect her secret parts; goes to whatever fucking-'Base' etc. LIttle Timmie RACES --> to Tell All (+ inventions==lies) about his Conquest! immediately after zipping-up. NOW: Little Suzy is a slut/LIttle Timmie is initiated into the Hypocrite's Club (inseparable from the Murican Club.) And so it went. I Saw that my compatriots (but not my cohorts) were the very-definition of Hypocrite. (And, I imagine--that was ~~ when I also Grew Up. Warily.) I ain't so special/there must have been Lots like me. (Only Mike could know about ... when Mike 'Grew Up'-- right?) I can't imagine what sort of std. Asshole I might have become, had I missed/blown-off that realization early-on. (I may be an Asshole still, for al I know fershure--but a Different mix, at the least.) I can be sure that: having thence decided to cut-some-slack to females next met, via Yes!-empathy for their plight--was not only Right but, fucking-well Appreciated. call that: feedback. Y'know? I despised the insouciant then.. as now. My guess is that Murica produces more Assholes (especially of the Male variety) than any other country. Whether M. belongs in that category--only He knows. This species would be a Hoot, if so many of our proclivities weren't plumb Evil--so it Isn't 'a Hoot here'. Die Murica. Let's see what can grow from the Death of all its Ignorance and Sanctimony, eh? (It can't get (much) Worse, even I wot.)
Post #386,927 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 8:32:55 AM Reply	It's not a phobia. It's ... like dairy. (This is a reference to Al Murray's bit and intended only as a joke).
Post #386,919 by rcareaga 2/26/14 1:57:50 AM Reply	mmoffitt! Georgia agrees with you! Be of good cheer, laddie! Peach state lawmakers are moving to free innkeepers and other devout heterosexual businessfolk from the tyranny of the Gay Agenda! A bill moving swiftly through the Georgia House of Representatives would allow business owners who believe homosexuality is a sin to openly discriminate against gay Americans by denying them employment or banning them from restaurants and hotels. Because why should a Motel 6 franchisee be compelled to rent to a couple of faggots who'll likely and literally violate the living shit (and sheets) out of the relevant passages of Leviticus, amirite? http://www.motherjon...people-out-diners cordially,
Post #386,923 by Ashton 2/26/14 6:37:06 AM Reply	Jeez, they're missing a whole new Enemy to persecute-- WTF Will these (Specialists-in-the-specious) Solons Do? ... when someone presents pictorial-evidence that, Y'know What? hypocrites: Some actual ladies acknowledge that [their very-own anus] has.. about as many erogenous zones as ... their other lady-parts seem to have. (This shall be News to ... what sort of hermit?) Can we guess When? this shall become The Next Crusade for [whatever-the-fuck these cretins latch-onto.] It is to laugh. August is a slow month: what think? Holy Cthulhu--can this retro-Bullshit-level ever be trumped? (Ummm, YES, is my guess.) I still await the shedding of clothes at Bus-stops. cf. The Year of the Jackpot one. more. time. Carrion.
Post #386,938 by boxley 2/26/14 10:49:18 AM Reply	that taint news Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,926 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 8:31:32 AM Reply	No, they don't. I thought I'd made this clear. I am opposed to wholesale discrimination. I don't know how many times I've said that in this thread and I'm too tired to count. What I mean by that is to refuse service of any type, for any purpose to anyone based on race, sexual orientation, religion, hair color, etc. What I'm suggesting is that when the intention of the service is one the vendor finds repugnant, the vendor be afforded the opportunity to decline (my tailor making swastika armbands and carpenter making crosses for Klan rallies is what I'm thinking of). Apparently, most here see that a distinction without difference, but that is not my view. All of you piling on me has informed my opinion some (don't misunderstand, I fully expected that and posted here because I knew you would and that I might learn something in the process). I do understand better how my position could lead to things of which I would never approve, notwithstanding my continuing uncomfortability to the legally binding rule of abandoning one's principles in the conduct of one's business in order to be afforded the opportunity to conduct business with the public. In the end, I guess I still feel that making a federal case (literally!) out of wedding pictures, cakes and flowers seems a little over the top. But my hat is off to all of you for trying to beat into my rather firm skull why doing so could be important.
Post #386,928 by crazy 2/26/14 9:18:04 AM Reply	"I am opposed to wholesale discrimination." But I approve of it at the retail level. That sums up my interpretation of what you write. Everything else is rationalization and wiggling.
Post #386,929 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 9:20:29 AM Reply	I am not surprised.
Post #386,930 by pwhysall 2/26/14 9:24:21 AM Reply	Well, that's what it is.
Post #386,934 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 9:59:52 AM Reply	I may not agree with you. But I will defend your right to be completely wrong.
Post #386,937 by pwhysall 2/26/14 10:34:43 AM Reply	You don't have to agree - - but your logic is indefensible. You wish to enable discrimination against gay people. You've wibbled and wobbled and said it's not like that and that some of your best friends are gay and oh hay religious rights and you don't want to discriminate against people except when you do. But that's the fundamental crux of it. Look at the array of opinions against you here: Me. Crazy. Folkert. Rand. AScott. Scott. Box. Alex. Ash. When that lot - who couldn't and haven't agree(d) on anything at all ever - ALL tell you you're wrong, you're fucking wrong.
Post #386,941 by drook 2/26/14 10:53:41 AM Reply	The general form of that ... When the only people who agree with you are assholes, it's time to reevaluate your opinion. -- Drew
Post #386,942 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 11:01:07 AM Reply	Again with the misstatement of my position. You wish to enable discrimination against gay people. No, I don't. I've only EVER advocated for discriminating against events. Like Klan and Neo-Nazi rallies and yes, gay weddings. Since it's much easier for you to oversimplify and put me in the religio-homophobic bucket and distort my view, by all means feel free. On the upside, your ill-founded attacks have given me some unpleasant insight into what might follow from my position. So for that, I thankee.
Post #386,944 by malraux 2/26/14 11:03:20 AM Reply	That may be your position But it's not of the baker you're supporting. He's not interested in making cakes for anything to do with gay unions at all, not just weddings, and no matter what's on the cake. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #386,945 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 11:08:31 AM Reply	Then he has an indefensible position. And THANK YOU! This is the first time anyone's acknowledged that my position is NOT that of the baker.
Post #386,955 by malraux 2/26/14 12:12:12 PM 2/26/14 12:12:36 PM Reply	El dupo. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. Edited by malraux Feb. 26, 2014, 12:12:36 PM EST Expand All History
Post #386,956 by malraux 2/26/14 12:12:12 PM Reply	That's your problem in this thread You appear to be supporting the baker, whose position is (to me at least) clearly indefensible. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #386,957 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 12:58:20 PM Reply	-999,999 for me for clarity then.
Post #386,946 by pwhysall 2/26/14 11:10:06 AM 2/26/14 11:24:15 AM Reply	Conflation of SSM with Klan and Neo-Nazi rallies? Seriously? A gay wedding is the celebration and public statement of the love and commitment that two people share with each other. The other two, not so much. Edit: clarity. Edited by pwhysall Feb. 26, 2014, 11:24:15 AM EST Expand All History
Post #386,950 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 11:26:03 AM Reply	Reductio ad absurdum. They are all events.
Post #386,951 by pwhysall 2/26/14 11:30:31 AM Reply	Whatever. Events aren't people. Events are held by people. Gay weddings are held by gay people. If you discriminate against gay weddings, you discriminate against gay people. (Also, neither the Klan nor the neo Nazis are protected groups, so as a black man, I can tell them "no, I will not make you a cake with a burning cross on it, because you're wearing your fucking bedlinen, you loon" with impunity)
Post #386,952 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 11:46:34 AM Reply	Nitpick much? Substitute a Crips or Bloods rally then.
Post #386,954 by pwhysall 2/26/14 11:56:16 AM Reply	Re: Nitpick much? Substitute a Crips or Bloods rally then. They're not protected groups either. This isn't nitpicking, much as it'd be convenient to your argument for it to be so. Would you also support discrimination against disabled weddings, black weddings or inter-racial weddings?
Post #386,959 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 1:33:09 PM Reply	Okay, so I assumed something not proven, but likely. Namely, that a member of the Crips or the Bloods seeking some product or service for a rally would be Black - a protected class. Curious that you brought up inter-racial weddings - that is precisely what caused me to reconsider the wisdom of my position. That example caused me to conclude that my choice of the baker case with gay weddings was a bad example of the point I was trying to make: I don't think it's a good idea for the State to start dictating which events a person must support with their work products. Perhaps because I'm not religious I didn't immediately see a wedding as anything other than "just an event." I consider my own wedding "just an event" that happened more than 30 years ago and that I can scarcely remember. That's why I initially interpreted the State saying to the baker/florist/photographer "You will support this event with your work product on pain of penalty" as the first slip down a dangerous slope.
Post #386,960 by drook 2/26/14 1:56:46 PM Reply	The second reply to you in this thread pointed that out http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=386722 You've spent the three days since then asserting without evidence that "gay" was different from "black". -- Drew
Post #387,069 by mmoffitt 3/1/14 2:11:30 PM Reply	It's not the same thing. Sexual Orientation is plainly not the same type of thing as is race. Unless, of course, you can identify the biological basis for the establishment of sexual orientation.
Post #387,070 by Another Scott 3/1/14 2:19:24 PM Reply	Stanford study from 1995. http://news.stanford...50310Arc5328.html HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #387,077 by mmoffitt 3/1/14 3:49:29 PM 3/1/14 4:00:40 PM Reply	Read the follow-up studies over the past 20 years. It's still, at best, highly speculative that there is any relation to biology. For example, the APA (which had previously advocated for the biological case circa the time or your Stanford posting) reversed itself in 2009: There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. https://www.apa.org/...y/orientation.pdf Edit: Supported my claim. Edited by mmoffitt March 1, 2014, 04:00:40 PM EST Expand All History
Post #387,078 by Another Scott 3/1/14 4:03:06 PM Reply	Point me to a cite, please. Here's one for you - http://www.pnas.org/...03/28/10771.short Another - http://rspb.royalsoc...1/1554/2217.short Another - http://www.ncbi.nlm....v/pubmed/12836730 Not being able to explain it fully doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #387,149 by mmoffitt 3/3/14 11:25:05 AM Reply	That's not how that works. You make the claim that its biology that determines gayness. I don't have to show it isn't, you have to show it is. And thusfar, you can't.
Post #387,154 by Another Scott 3/3/14 11:37:12 AM Reply	Eh? Review http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=387069 I answered your query. You said it wasn't good enough based on your reading of the past 20 years. I gave you more, but you still haven't answered me - a cite that says it isn't biology. The burden's on you. HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #387,156 by boxley 3/3/14 12:04:47 PM Reply	thats the prove there is no gawd argument :-) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #387,174 by folkert 3/3/14 9:44:44 PM Reply	So... when did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual? If it is a choice... then when did you choose to be a heterosexual? Come now, scared to answer it? It's ok, we all know your answer. You just have to tell the truth. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #387,187 by mmoffitt 3/4/14 9:28:10 AM Reply	This is my last on this, and only because I like you & Scott Holding that homosexuality is not provably based upon biology is not the same as saying it's a choice. I do not now, nor have I ever believed it was a choice. I believe it is most likely biologically based and multi-gene. I also believe that in 1973, well before the mapping of the human genome, we cut off a line of inquiry forever that might have helped solve the riddle. In today's political climate, who is going to dare ask for funding for a study of the genes responsible for mental illness among homosexuals? What if the interactions between those genes and others give rise to homosexuality? We'll never know because we deferred to a "vote" based upon the study of 30 individuals. If it is the case that homosexuality is related to mental illness, we'll never know it because we've chosen willful blindness.
Post #387,188 by pwhysall 3/4/14 9:54:42 AM Reply	What's the hypothesis, here? Before you go off and study the genes responsible for mental illness in a homosexual population, what would attract you to this line of investigation? There's no riddle. Some people like crazy buttsecks, or drinking from the furry cup. Some people don't. We is what we is. What would you do with the answer if you got one? Tell all those poor gays that it's OK, they're just insane in the brain? You might just as profitably investigate why some colonial weirdos like Vegemite and Superior Imperial Beings prefer Marmite. And finally: if it's not a choice, why do you advocate discriminating on the basis of it?
Post #387,189 by mmoffitt 3/4/14 10:13:16 AM Reply	Re: what would attract you to this line of investigation? Because it was once classified as a mental illness. Having it striken from the list of diagnoses had absolutely nothing to do with science.
Post #387,190 by boxley 3/4/14 10:21:05 AM Reply	exactly, same as being lefthanded is no longer considered a mental illness. Should have left it in for more study Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #387,195 by mmoffitt 3/4/14 11:45:25 AM Reply	Um. Somebody did continue study: http://www.medicalne...ticles/267047.php
Post #387,192 by pwhysall 3/4/14 10:24:30 AM Reply	So you want to check whether it still is a mental illness?
Post #387,194 by drook 3/4/14 10:29:52 AM Reply	If we must keep this up, new thread please? -- Drew
Post #387,197 by crazy 3/4/14 12:55:52 PM Reply	Because if it an illness, it might be fixable or prevented Normal vs not normal line of thought gets him in trouble. But if it is an illness, he can claim he simply wants sick people to get better as a rationalization for simply wanting to oppress those that make him uncomfortable. Here, I'll run with it. There are all kinds of genetic variations that may end up being harmful to the individual, while being beneficial to the population at large. Like sickle cell anemia, which protects against malaria. In this case (the "gay" gene (or groupings which tend toward it)), a portion of the population has ended up with genes that may be individually harmful (assholes abuse them because they carry this trait), while also being beneficial to society in general (it allows the rest of us to identify the assholes).
Post #387,198 by drook 3/4/14 1:03:24 PM Reply	New. Thread. Please. -- Drew
Post #387,071 by folkert 3/1/14 2:48:49 PM Reply	So, when did you choose to be Hetero-Sexual? -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #387,073 by malraux 3/1/14 3:12:46 PM Reply	Either way, it doesn't matter. Protected class is a protected class. Religion is also a protected class, but it doesn't have a biological basis. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #387,074 by mmoffitt 3/1/14 3:25:06 PM Reply	Concur.
Post #386,953 by boxley 2/26/14 11:52:54 AM Reply	I think I get your position A FEDERAL court case over refusing to bake a cake!! cmon!!! Without thinking about it is the little things that aggregate into a miscarriage of justice. After all refusing to sit at the back of the bus is a little thing, a wedding cake refusal sort of a case. It was that single little thing that allowed America to examine how we were and start the change. It is not done yet by a long shot, but it needs to continue. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,948 by a6l6e6x 2/26/14 11:21:34 AM Reply	Well, we could be the Flat Earth Society! :) Alex ÂThere is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.Â -- Isaac Asimov
Post #386,949 by pwhysall 2/26/14 11:23:33 AM Reply	Flat? FLAT? Everyone knows it's hyperbolic saddle-shaped!
Post #386,939 by boxley 2/26/14 10:51:28 AM Reply	well, there goes the gay black men convention in Atlanta Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,963 by Ashton 2/26/14 4:55:08 PM Reply	Then ... let them eat cake! (Falsely attrib. to Marie Antoinette, last I read) oh WAIT! This-all started in the famous massacree of Feb. 2014 wherein a Baker was forced to bake. And the local population Exploded. It was said that a certain cake (deep frozen in LN and formed into shards) were weapons of choice: then the Baker was found guilty of mayhem leading to manslaughter. Posthumously. Ain"t Murica Great? (All this, just as a local cycle gang, gathered for breakfast, were asked somewhat rhetorically) Well chaps, what'll it be today.. mindless destruction or senseless violence?
Post #386,976 by Ashton 2/26/14 11:24:37 PM Reply	Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill on Refusal of Service to Gays http://www.nytimes.c..._na_20140226&_r=0 Hey.. I knew we were powerful, but.. it usually takes a couple days. Coincidence? The measure is the latest initiative in Arizona to set off a political firestorm. Arizona is still struggling to repair its image and finances after the boycotts and bad publicity it endured after the passage of an immigration law in 2010 that gave police officers the right to stop people whom they suspected of being in the country illegally and made it a crime for illegal immigrants to hold jobs. The state also faced a boycott almost 20 years ago, after voters initially refused to recognize Martin Luther KingÂs Birthday as a state holiday. At that time, the state was also set to host the Super Bowl, but the N.F.L., looking to avoid controversy, moved the game to Pasadena, Calif. Jeez, even MLK got no respect in the Red Arid Zone. Wonder how they've done with Jews all along--could Einstein have gotten a WW-II Arizona Visa?
Post #386,978 by Another Scott 2/27/14 8:16:07 AM Reply	Story behind the AZ (and other states) bill http://sdgln.com/new...ash.SlI7QdJH.dpbs The Arizona bill, SB 1062, like the other bills that have been introduced mostly in states where Republicans control the legislature, can be traced back to a richly-funded group called the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a noble-sounding moniker that is as phony as a three-dollar bill. ADF formerly was known as the Alliance Defense Fund, which was founded by a notorious roster of homophobic Religious Right leaders such as James Dobson of Focus on Family; the Rev. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries; Don Wildmon of the American Family Association; Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ; and more than two dozen other anti-gay figures. ADF is led by Alan Sears, president, CEO and General Counsel since Alliance Defense Fund debuted in 1993. ADF's board of directors features 12 anti-gay leaders who support only the freedom of its Religious Right members under the pretense of "defending freedom for faith and for justice." The group makes no bones that it is a "Christian" legal ministry on its website. [...] P.S.: The shenanigans aren't over in Arizona, even if Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes this bill. Lawmakers are also considering HB 2481, which would redefine the role of a "minister" to include any official who presides over weddings. This is considered a preemptive strike in case gay marriage ever comes to Arizona, so HB 2481 would allow any "minister" to decline to officiate at weddings of gay and lesbian couples if their "sincerely held religious beliefs" conflict with the law. (Emphasis added.) (via Mnemosyne on Balloon-Juice - http://www.balloon-j.../#comment-4890896 ) Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,979 by drook 2/27/14 9:18:49 AM Reply	So every judge is now a member of the clergy ... OK -- Drew
Post #386,990 by Ashton 2/27/14 5:13:35 PM Reply	Thanks ~~what I'd imagined: textbook religio-anarchy. Again.
Post #386,994 by crazy 2/27/14 5:25:56 PM Reply	You got a buddy http://www.huffingto...ay_n_4860972.html Great video. Almost satire.

Welcome to IWETHEY!