Have Your Same Sex Wedding Cake And Eat It Too

[Buzzard]

Gays are not blacks. it's not the same. Even in the deep south during Jim Crow, when blacks were considered inferior, it was not considered a moral failing to be black.

Let's face it, Gays run into opposition because of what they do, not who they are. A person with SSA who is living a moral life (meaning no gay sex) will rarely (I won't say never because there are a few full on jerks out there) be ill treated by religious adults. 

And yes, I know I use parentheses too much.

[california boy]

So are you claiming to be a different race?

 

 

You can be discriminated against for more things than race.  Is that news to you??

 

Gays are not blacks. it's not the same. Even in the deep south during Jim Crow, when blacks were considered inferior, it was not considered a moral failing to be black.

Let's face it, Gays run into opposition because of what they do, not who they are. A person with SSA who is living a moral life (meaning no gay sex) will rarely (I won't say never because there are a few full on jerks out there) be ill treated by religious adults. 

And yes, I know I use parentheses too much.

 

So you think this is about discriminating against someone because they are committing a sin?  Can you show where ANY of these establishments discriminated against any of their other customers because of some sin in their life?  

[Storm Rider]

I heard these exact same arguments justifying discrimination against blacks during the civil rights.  

 

"This topic that somehow black people are so much better than everyone else and they needed to be treated superior to everyone is just naive. We have a market place and some businesses provide great service, some businesses provide acceptable service, and others provide lousy service.  Where in this market place is it required that somehow because a black person/couple shows up on your doorstep that everyone must bow, kowtow, and provide superior service for no other reason than because they are black."  

 

Sound familiar?  Do we really want to go back to a country that discriminates?  Or maybe you were in favor of racial discrimination as well?  And just how far back are you willing to go?  Should we go back to the time when Mormons were driven out of Missouri just because they were Moromon?  After all, there are other states they can go to that accept Mormons.   Geez, for a religion that experienced real discrimination, I find it appalling that some are willing to support discrimination of any kind.  

 

Baking a wedding cake or renting your venue out for a gay wedding does not mean you support gay marriage.  Did the church owned Hotel Utah require couples to show their wedding licenses before the church rented them a room to prove they were legally married?  Was the Hotel Utah condoning breaking the Word of Wisdom by serving coffee?  How about the guy in my ward that owned a restaurant?  Was he condoning breaking the WofW by serving coffee in his restaurant?  Was I condoning breaking the WofW by serving customers coffee?  How about a Muslin grocery clerk that rings up a slab of bacon.  Just where should the line be drawn???

 

It all sounds to me like some "christians" have decided that gay marriage is some kind of HUGE sin that they must make some stand against.  Do they run their other customers through some kind of grilling to make sure they are not committing any sins?  Is it a bigger sin for a gay person to get married then it is for them to just live with their partner?  Does marriage require the customer to be without sin???  

 

If I don't want to make a cake, for whatever reason, it is Tuesday and I want to play golf; if I would rather go to the beach with my family; or it is simply a great time of the year and I want to take time off; none of these will work for a gay person or you are sued, your business is shut down, and you are out of work.  That is a special right that does not exist for that old, stupid normal people that don't have special rights.  

 

Gay people want to make all reasons for their non-service about being gay.  It isn't; it may be because you are rude or a business simply does want to take on more business.  A person without special rights walks in the door and you say no can do and they walk down the street and find someone else.  A gay person walks in and it becomes a national event because they have been denied whatever it is they want.  Why should a gay person be treated special?  Why should every business live in fear about turning some rude twit away and a directive to not come back?  

 

Oh, that is right, because you are gay----a special right for a special class of people.  You are not black and you never have been.  You don't know the meaning of being black and it is insulting to equate being gay to being black.  Just an aside for the obnoxious comparison that is so often offered. 

[Daniel2]

Things I've learned from this thread:

When public accommodation laws protect against "religious" or "racial" or "gender" discrimination (regardless of which religion or which race or which gender): it's something along the lines of "constitutional" and "equitable" and/or "American" or at least "something that isn't worth complaining about or changing, cuz... well... nobody objects to those kinds of protections anymore, anyway."

When public accommodation laws protect against "sexual orientation" discrimination (regardless of which sexual orientation): it's "those uppity, self-entitled, pushy, how-dare-they?! gays getting uber-extra-special-preferential treatment" and probably "suppression of heterosexuals" and very probably "unjustly and unfairly and completely unreasonably forcing decent business owners to engage in commerce(!), selling the same stuff that such business unquestioningly and routinely sell to anyone else, to immoral gays (as opposed to selling stuff to utter, but entirely--at least, observably, because of their totally not-chosen, genders--straight [and therefore not objectionable] strangers about whom most business owners know absolutely nothing about)-commerce, mind you, that violates such business owners 'deeply held religious beliefs'."

 

Help!  Help!  Christians are being repressed!  Excuse me while I go clutch my pearls...

[Storm Rider]

Daniel, exaggeration can work except when you are wrong in your assumptions.  What I find silly about this whole thing is 1) business owners telling a customer I will not serve you because you are gay - the very epitome of naïve stupidity and 2)  I honest see each and everyone of these examples as businesses being asked knowing they will be refused so they can make political hay. 

 

My position is that if I don't want to work I won't work; it does not matter who it is.  I have the great luxury of being able to refuse work for all kinds of reasons; I don't serve the public at large.  However, I have great pity for those who must serve the public because I find the public excessively rude and generally obnoxious regardless of gender, religion, creed, or sexual preference. 

 

For example, it was raining one day many years ago when our children were quite young playing on soccer teams. My wife had gone early and parked her car where she could sit in her car and still see the kids play soccer games.  As she was watching our daughter play her game a women came up and tapped on her driver's side window.  Without a hello or any form of introduction, she was informed by this individual that she had to move because her child was going to be playing soccer and she wanted to watch the game without getting out of the car and standing in the rain.  My wife, stunned at this woman's chutzpah, told the woman that she was parked there to watch her own child play.  If she wanted to watch her child play the next time it was raining to come earlier and then shut the car window.  This idea of entitlement is what is so grating.  

 

I can find literally a multitude of gay florists, cake makers, decorators, and party planners in Seattle.  I suspect it may even be the exception to find a shop without a gay person owning or employed in these businesses.  Now, I may be make a very poor assumption that other large cities are equally represented in the same numbers as in Seattle.  Regardless, the options are endless.

 

Gay people and those with the gay agenda have become that god-awful, obnoxious woman tapping on the window demanding that we move because they feel entitled to sit in front to watch their child play.  Every one is forced to make obeisance at the great god of homosexuality and the gay lifestyle.  If anyone dates to criticize they are squashed unmercifully.  In fact, we have turned on the gestapo to root out those that might have a problem in order to make examples of them to the rest of our citizens.  You either comply and accept our lifestyle or you die.  You may not work, you cannot worship, you cannot go to school until you first bow down to the gay god. 

 

I am one that is not afraid to reject it because I live overseas.  You cannot take my job; you cannot affect my livelihood or that of my family.  I am grateful for being beyond the reach of this upside down world that the US has become.

 

Daniel, we have had gay people for a long, long time.  At no time has a society been forced under threat of destruction to accept their lifestyle.  How is that not a special right?  Gays are not asking for a place at the table; rather they are seeking the entire table.  What is worse is that there has been several articles that describe that the gay agenda has verbally defined their objective is the destruction of the human family.  Strange agenda for a loving group of gays that only want acceptance as you portray. 

[BCSpace]

Help!  Help!  Christians are being repressed!  Excuse me while I go clutch my pearls...

 

 

 

Actually, I DO believe the examples in the OP are examples of Christians being repressed. However the suggested reaction seems to minimize that repression and still allow Christians to strike a blow for good, a good that doesn't repress anyone, don't you think?

[thesometimesaint]

Gays are not blacks. it's not the same. Even in the deep south during Jim Crow, when blacks were considered inferior, it was not considered a moral failing to be black.

Let's face it, Gays run into opposition because of what they do, not who they are. A person with SSA who is living a moral life (meaning no gay sex) will rarely (I won't say never because there are a few full on jerks out there) be ill treated by religious adults. 

And yes, I know I use parentheses too much.

 

Some blacks are gay, some whites are gay, some orientals are gay, and Amerids are gay. Yes it was/is considered a moral failing to be black. After all the best they can hope for in the Mormon religion is to be unpaid servants to their white moral superiors(Mark E. Peterson in the Happy Negro)   If blacks didn't act so black they would have had Civil Rights all along. So now it OK to discriminate on the basis of religion too? Do you inquire into the sex habits everyone you meet in order to determine if you will treat them like fellow human beings?

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel, exaggeration can work except when you are wrong in your assumptions.  What I find silly about this whole thing is 1) business owners telling a customer I will not serve you because you are gay - the very epitome of naïve stupidity and 2)  I honest see each and everyone of these examples as businesses being asked knowing they will be refused so they can make political hay. 

 

My position is that if I don't want to work I won't work; it does not matter who it is.  I have the great luxury of being able to refuse work for all kinds of reasons; I don't serve the public at large.  However, I have great pity for those who must serve the public because I find the public excessively rude and generally obnoxious regardless of gender, religion, creed, or sexual preference. 

 

For example, it was raining one day many years ago when our children were quite young playing on soccer teams. My wife had gone early and parked her car where she could sit in her car and still see the kids play soccer games.  As she was watching our daughter play her game a women came up and tapped on her driver's side window.  Without a hello or any form of introduction, she was informed by this individual that she had to move because her child was going to be playing soccer and she wanted to watch the game without getting out of the car and standing in the rain.  My wife, stunned at this woman's chutzpah, told the woman that she was parked there to watch her own child play.  If she wanted to watch her child play the next time it was raining to come earlier and then shut the car window.  This idea of entitlement is what is so grating.  

 

I can find literally a multitude of gay florists, cake makers, decorators, and party planners in Seattle.  I suspect it may even be the exception to find a shop without a gay person owning or employed in these businesses.  Now, I may be make a very poor assumption that other large cities are equally represented in the same numbers as in Seattle.  Regardless, the options are endless.

 

Gay people and those with the gay agenda have become that god-awful, obnoxious woman tapping on the window demanding that we move because they feel entitled to sit in front to watch their child play.  Every one is forced to make obeisance at the great god of homosexuality and the gay lifestyle.  If anyone dates to criticize they are squashed unmercifully.  In fact, we have turned on the gestapo to root out those that might have a problem in order to make examples of them to the rest of our citizens.  You either comply and accept our lifestyle or you die.  You may not work, you cannot worship, you cannot go to school until you first bow down to the gay god. 

 

I am one that is not afraid to reject it because I live overseas.  You cannot take my job; you cannot affect my livelihood or that of my family.  I am grateful for being beyond the reach of this upside down world that the US has become.

 

Daniel, we have had gay people for a long, long time.  At no time has a society been forced under threat of destruction to accept their lifestyle.  How is that not a special right?  Gays are not asking for a place at the table; rather they are seeking the entire table.  What is worse is that there has been several articles that describe that the gay agenda has verbally defined their objective is the destruction of the human family.  Strange agenda for a loving group of gays that only want acceptance as you portray. 

 

Venomous hyperbole isn't your strong suit.

We have had Jew people for a long, long time.  At no time has a society been forced under threat of destruction to accept their lifestyle.  How is that not a special right?  Jews are not asking for a place at the table; rather they are seeking the entire table.  What is worse is that there has been several articles that describe that the Jew agenda has verbally defined their objective is the destruction of the human family.  Strange agenda for a loving group of Jews that only want acceptance as they portray.

[thesometimesaint]

 

 

Actually, I DO believe the examples in the OP are examples of Christians being repressed. However the suggested reaction seems to minimize that repression and still allow Christians to strike a blow for good, a good that doesn't repress anyone, don't you think?

 

While no group is immune Christianity has a special place in history as the greatest force for evil the world has ever seen.

[Storm Rider]

Venomous hyperbole isn't your strong suit.

We have had Jew people for a long, long time.  At no time has a society been forced under threat of destruction to accept their lifestyle.  How is that not a special right?  Jews are not asking for a place at the table; rather they are seeking the entire table.  What is worse is that there has been several articles that describe that the Jew agenda has verbally defined their objective is the destruction of the human family.  Strange agenda for a loving group of Jews that only want acceptance as they portray.

 

I wonder if you tire of that type of drivel.  It does not apply; put Mormon, Hispanic, Muslim, Asian, Catholic, Quaker, Druid, Indian, First Nation's; it still does not apply,  Do you have something to contribute or just ....waste time. 

[Storm Rider]

While no group is immune Christianity has a special place in history as the greatest force for evil the world has ever seen.

 

Which Cracker Jack box did you find this bit of wisdom?  

[thesometimesaint]

I wonder if you tire of that type of drivel.  It does not apply; put Mormon, Hispanic, Muslim, Asian, Catholic, Quaker, Druid, Indian, First Nation's; it still does not apply,  Do you have something to contribute or just ....waste time. 

 

I suggest you read any of a number of Anti-Mormon books, and leaflets that are available.

I suggest you read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

I suggest you read up on Pamela Geller and Richard Pipes.

Read up on the anti-Chinese laws of the 1800's

Read up on the anti-Japanese laws of the 1940's

Etc., etc., etc..

 

Your type of bigotry really isn't anything new and has been use for millennia as an excuse to do all manner of evil.

[thesometimesaint]

Which Cracker Jack box did you find this bit of wisdom?  

 

What's not to like about Cracker Jack? Popcorn, Peanuts, Candy, and a Prize.

[Storm Rider]

I suggest you read any of a number of Anti-Mormon books, and leaflets that are available.

I suggest you read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

I suggest you read up on Pamela Geller and Richard Pipes.

Read up on the anti-Chinese laws of the 1800's

Read up on the anti-Japanese laws of the 1940's

Etc., etc., etc..

 

Your type of bigotry really isn't anything new and has been use for millennia as an excuse to do all manner of evil.

 

Don't you feel better?  It is so much more helpful to put a nice big stamp on everyone that disagrees with you - BIGGOT - no need to listen to that one.  Next, in the line of the truely enlightened and tolerant.  Gosh, if you could pat yourself on the back what need would there be for anyone else but the truly righteous and enlightened all patting themselves on the back for being so enlightened.  

 

Sorry, but homey don't play like that. 

[Mystery Meat]

We have to pick and chose I guess. At this current time in our society we have chosen to value a gay persons right to products and services that are widely available from a variety of vendors over the religious person's right to not participate in things they find morally objective.  

[Storm Rider]

There have certainly been times and may continue to be times when gay person finds discrimination, but I strongly suspect that these are exceptions rather than the rule.  In major businesses there is zero discrimination and in the small, family businesses there may be a higher probability that an individual would seek to express their conscious decision to not serve a specific group, ideology, or behavior.  On the other hand, businesses refuse to serve people because of bad behavior or for other reasons every day. 

 

What is at stake today is that those rights to refuse service is prevented because of special rights afforded a single group regardless of what identifies the group.  The pendulum has swung to the extreme. 

 

It is naïve for us to assume that because an upper hand has been gained that a group will cease with the obnoxious legal actions. This will continue until such time as the pendulum begins to attain a more balanced social structure without preference.

[thesometimesaint]

Don't you feel better?  It is so much more helpful to put a nice big stamp on everyone that disagrees with you - BIGGOT - no need to listen to that one.  Next, in the line of the truely enlightened and tolerant.  Gosh, if you could pat yourself on the back what need would there be for anyone else but the truly righteous and enlightened all patting themselves on the back for being so enlightened.  

 

Sorry, but homey don't play like that. 

 

No; I actually feel sorry for you. BTW it is spelled BIGOT. I find being enlightened and tolerant far better than being unenlightened and intolerant. Condescension isn't your strong suit. 

 

Sorry I ain't your homey.

[california boy]

If I don't want to make a cake, for whatever reason, it is Tuesday and I want to play golf; if I would rather go to the beach with my family; or it is simply a great time of the year and I want to take time off; none of these will work for a gay person or you are sued, your business is shut down, and you are out of work.  That is a special right that does not exist for that old, stupid normal people that don't have special rights.  

 

Gay people want to make all reasons for their non-service about being gay.  It isn't; it may be because you are rude or a business simply does want to take on more business.  A person without special rights walks in the door and you say no can do and they walk down the street and find someone else.  A gay person walks in and it becomes a national event because they have been denied whatever it is they want.  Why should a gay person be treated special?  Why should every business live in fear about turning some rude twit away and a directive to not come back?  

 

Oh, that is right, because you are gay----a special right for a special class of people.  You are not black and you never have been.  You don't know the meaning of being black and it is insulting to equate being gay to being black.  Just an aside for the obnoxious comparison that is so often offered. 

 

Utter nonsense.  Is this really the best argument you have to prove that gays have "a sense of entitlement"?

 

Each of these businesses mentioned had their day in court.  EACH of them testified that the reason they did not bake a cakephotography for the couple was because they don't do gay weddings.  THAT was the reason.  And the judge in each case told them if they are in business, serving the public the law does not allow them to discriminate.  It had NOTHING to do with their golf game, closing their business to take time off, or customers being rude,   Sorry, no special rights are being imposed by "the gays."

 

Now if you can show me a legal case where a gay person is suing someone for playing golf instead of being open for business and winning that case then you would have a point.  

 

This idea must of sounded better in your head.  On paper, it is laughable.

[Mystery Meat]

Utter nonsense.  Is this really the best argument you have to prove that gays have "a sense of entitlement"?

 

Each of these businesses mentioned had their day in court.  EACH of them testified that the reason they did not bake a cakephotography for the couple was because they don't do gay weddings.  THAT was the reason.  And the judge in each case told them if they are in business, serving the public the law does not allow them to discriminate.  It had NOTHING to do with their golf game, closing their business to take time off, or customers being rude,   Sorry, no special rights are being imposed by "the gays."

 

Now if you can show me a legal case where a gay person is suing someone for playing golf instead of being open for business and winning that case then you would have a point.  

 

This idea must of sounded better in your head.  On paper, it is laughable.

 

I actually agree with you here. I don't think it is a matter of businesses being too busy, but rather a fact that they want to discriminate.

 

The question I ask, however, is should they be allowed to? In my opinion, yes they should. Especially when in essence we are, as a society, asking them to sacrifice their values for the right/privilege of having their own shop. I think that is shortsighted and wrong.

 

Another pet peeve of mine that I have seen you do quite a bit (and you are not alone) that I want to address. You use the court system as a trump card on a regular basis to somehow show how right you are. When I went to law school, one of the things our professors tried to hammer into us was the idea that it is okay to disagree with a judge/justice. Every once in a while there was a classmate who appealed to the all holy name of Stevens, or Scalia, or (gag) Brennan to try and end an argument. My favorite rebuttal to such attempts to quash conversation was, "Well, [insert name of judge here] was wrong."

 

Surely you don't agree with the ruling in Dred Scott. I imagine you (or others) might have serious issues with the Citizens United ruling. What about the people who disagree with Roe v. Wade or Hobby Lobby? Are they wrong to say or even suggest that, gasp, the Supreme Court may have gotten it wrong? Does the Supreme Court get the final say in adjudicating right and wrong?

 

Fortunately, they do not. Fortunately, we can disagree (and in many cases base our opinions on points of law and not just personal moral feelings) in how they got it dreadfully wrong. Judges and Justices are people. It is a well told joke among law students that the Supreme Court first makes its decision (usually based on personal politics) then finds some law to back it up (See Justice Brennan...the worst Supreme Court judge of all time). 

 

So you will excuse me if I reject your premise that I have to find a judge or two who agrees with me about any point in order to be right about my position. I believe it is wrong, immoral, and downright despicable for any judge or other person to require business owners to participate in activities they find morally objectionable and violate their conscious based on the actions of others that they deem wrong. I believe it is a violation of the Constitution. You can disagree with me. That's fine. Many people do. The interpretation of the Constitution is going that way. I think that interpretation is wrong (I also think the Civil Rights Act, as much as its premise and motivations are good) is unconstitutional. 

 

But, please, stop implying that use of judicial decisions is somehow required to make a point about law and morallity.

[Judd]

I'm still interested to know if people think it'd be okay for:

-A feminist who is pro-choice, and even herself had an abortion, who owns a graphics design and printing shop to refuse to print flyers for an evangelical group's "Preserving Infant Life" rally.

-A gay male who owns a catering business to refuse to cater a fund-raiser for a Proposition 8 equivalent put on by a Catholic organization.

Clearly you can't refuse service to someone based on something like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I suppose the question would be is can you refuse to participate in something you find morally objectionable (gay marriage) or is that just synonymous with refusing service because someone is gay? On the flip side, could one refuse to cater an event for a church that is raising money for the 'defense of marriage' because they find it morally objectionable (i.e. anti-gay) or would this be reusing service because of their religious beliefs?

[Mystery Meat]

I'm still interested to know if people think it'd be okay for:

-A feminist who is pro-choice, and even herself had an abortion, who owns a graphics design and printing shop to refuse to print flyers for an evangelical group's "Preserving Infant Life" rally.

-A gay male who owns a catering business to refuse to cater a fund-raiser for a Proposition 8 equivalent put on by a Catholic organization.

Clearly you can't refuse service to someone based on something like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I suppose the question would be is can you refuse to participate in something you find morally objectionable (gay marriage) or is that just synonymous with refusing service because someone is gay? On the flip side, could one refuse to cater an event for a church that is raising money for the 'defense of marriage' because they find it morally objectionable (i.e. anti-gay) or would this be reusing service because of their religious beliefs?

 

Yes.

 

Yes.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm still interested to know if people think it'd be okay for:

-A feminist who is pro-choice, and even herself had an abortion, who owns a graphics design and printing shop to refuse to print flyers for an evangelical group's "Preserving Infant Life" rally.

-A gay male who owns a catering business to refuse to cater a fund-raiser for a Proposition 8 equivalent put on by a Catholic organization.

Clearly you can't refuse service to someone based on something like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I suppose the question would be is can you refuse to participate in something you find morally objectionable (gay marriage) or is that just synonymous with refusing service because someone is gay? On the flip side, could one refuse to cater an event for a church that is raising money for the 'defense of marriage' because they find it morally objectionable (i.e. anti-gay) or would this be reusing service because of their religious beliefs?

 

It is increasingly illegal for a business discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Churches generally speaking are not subject to public accommodation laws. 

[california boy]

I actually agree with you here. I don't think it is a matter of businesses being too busy, but rather a fact that they want to discriminate.

 

The question I ask, however, is should they be allowed to? In my opinion, yes they should. Especially when in essence we are, as a society, asking them to sacrifice their values for the right/privilege of having their own shop. I think that is shortsighted and wrong.

 

Another pet peeve of mine that I have seen you do quite a bit (and you are not alone) that I want to address. You use the court system as a trump card on a regular basis to somehow show how right you are. When I went to law school, one of the things our professors tried to hammer into us was the idea that it is okay to disagree with a judge/justice. Every once in a while there was a classmate who appealed to the all holy name of Stevens, or Scalia, or (gag) Brennan to try and end an argument. My favorite rebuttal to such attempts to quash conversation was, "Well, [insert name of judge here] was wrong."

 

Surely you don't agree with the ruling in Dred Scott. I imagine you (or others) might have serious issues with the Citizens United ruling. What about the people who disagree with Roe v. Wade or Hobby Lobby? Are they wrong to say or even suggest that, gasp, the Supreme Court may have gotten it wrong? Does the Supreme Court get the final say in adjudicating right and wrong?

 

Fortunately, they do not. Fortunately, we can disagree (and in many cases base our opinions on points of law and not just personal moral feelings) in how they got it dreadfully wrong. Judges and Justices are people. It is a well told joke among law students that the Supreme Court first makes its decision (usually based on personal politics) then finds some law to back it up (See Justice Brennan...the worst Supreme Court judge of all time). 

 

So you will excuse me if I reject your premise that I have to find a judge or two who agrees with me about any point in order to be right about my position. I believe it is wrong, immoral, and downright despicable for any judge or other person to require business owners to participate in activities they find morally objectionable and violate their conscious based on the actions of others that they deem wrong. I believe it is a violation of the Constitution. You can disagree with me. That's fine. Many people do. The interpretation of the Constitution is going that way. I think that interpretation is wrong (I also think the Civil Rights Act, as much as its premise and motivations are good) is unconstitutional. 

 

But, please, stop implying that use of judicial decisions is somehow required to make a point about law and morallity.

I often use judicial decisions as a basis to support what I believe because it is the law.  Now if people want to change the laws of this country, there is a process that they go through as long as it is constitutional.  And even if it is not constitutional, there is a process to change the constitution.  How you or I interpret the constitution or any other law is irrelevant.  That is why we have a court system.  If we as a society don't like the way the courts are ruling, we have a way of rectifying that as well.  

 

Laws are the set of rules citizens have agreed to abide by.  Making up your own rules and deciding how you want to run the country is not how society functions.  Like you, I don't agree with all of the laws of this country, but I don't try and make things up telling others that I have a right as a business to discriminate when I don't.  Now if you want to talk about whether we should change those laws, then that is an entirely different subject.  But quite frankly, the majority of Americans do not want an amendment to not allow gays to marry and the majority of Americans do not want an amendment to allow discrimination again.  The majority of Americans believe in equal protection for all.  We like that about this country.

[Mystery Meat]

I often use judicial decisions as a basis to support what I believe because it is the law.  Now if people want to change the laws of this country, there is a process that they go through as long as it is constitutional.  And even if it is not constitutional, there is a process to change the constitution.  How you or I interpret the constitution or any other law is irrelevant.  That is why we have a court system.  If we as a society don't like the way the courts are ruling, we have a way of rectifying that as well.  

 

Laws are the set of rules citizens have agreed to abide by.  Making up your own rules and deciding how you want to run the country is not how society functions.  Like you, I don't agree with all of the laws of this country, but I don't try and make things up telling others that I have a right as a business to discriminate when I don't.  Now if you want to talk about whether we should change those laws, then that is an entirely different subject.  But quite frankly, the majority of Americans do not want an amendment to not allow gays to marry and the majority of Americans do not want an amendment to allow discrimination again.  The majority of Americans believe in equal protection for all.  We like that about this country.

 

But see, I think under the Constitution they do have a right to discriminate.

[thesometimesaint]

But see, I think under the Constitution they do have a right to discriminate.

 

The 14th Amendment would disagree.