Blue eyes are "atypical". Being over 2 meters tall is also.

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)

Welcome to IWETHEY!