Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Many of us are bullied by LGBT leftists. Just ask Baronelle Stutzman who had to shut down her business. Does "it get better" for her ?

she absolutely did not have to shut down her business. what are you even talking about?

She was given the choice of providing flowers to same-sex marriages

exactly.

Yes, that's right you always have a choice.  Your livelihood or your moral identity.  Why would anyone complain, they at least get one or the other?   They should just be grateful they aren't stripped of their capacity for free will altogether.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Many of us are bullied by LGBT leftists. Just ask Baronelle Stutzman who had to shut down her business. Does "it get better" for her ?

she absolutely did not have to shut down her business. what are you even talking about?

She was given the choice of providing flowers to same-sex marriages

exactly.

Yes, that's right you always have a choice.  Your livelihood or your moral identity.  Why would anyone complain, they at least get one or the other?   They should just be grateful they aren't stripped of their capacity for free will altogether.

The US government just keeps trampling on the ability of good old Christian store owners to self-actualize. First in 1964, when they had to start serving those dirty negroes, and now in 2015, where they have to serve those vile gays.

I'm sure all those people braved the dogs and fire hoses because they didn't get their first choice of wedding cake.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Many of us are bullied by LGBT leftists. Just ask Baronelle Stutzman who had to shut down her business. Does "it get better" for her ?

she absolutely did not have to shut down her business. what are you even talking about?

She was given the choice of providing flowers to same-sex marriages

exactly.

Yes, that's right you always have a choice.  Your livelihood or your moral identity.  Why would anyone complain, they at least get one or the other?   They should just be grateful they aren't stripped of their capacity for free will altogether.

if your moral identity is founded on hatred of minorities, then it's not a moral identity worth protecting.

It's not a matter of hating minorities.  Maybe if you would listen to people's objections for a second before you tried to make them illegal you would understand that.

You know what's not worth protecting?  The right to call in the government and punish people  every time you don't get your way.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Many of us are bullied by LGBT leftists. Just ask Baronelle Stutzman who had to shut down her business. Does "it get better" for her ?

she absolutely did not have to shut down her business. what are you even talking about?

She was given the choice of providing flowers to same-sex marriages

exactly.

Yes, that's right you always have a choice.  Your livelihood or your moral identity.  Why would anyone complain, they at least get one or the other?   They should just be grateful they aren't stripped of their capacity for free will altogether.

But baking a plain cake, which could be used any marriage, gay or straight isn't related at all to moral identity. In short, if they baker has to ask to know than it's for a gay marriage, I don't see how it infringes on his moral identity (and really, he shouldn't inquire about the private life of the owner).

If I order a plain cake, with no writing on it, I don't expect the baker to ask me for which reason I need a cake. If I take the next step of your argument, if a gay couple orders in a restaurant, it might offend the moral identity of the cook.

If they ask a special cake for a gay wedding, right, you have a point and I stand with the right of owner to accept or decline any special order. But, for a plain cake, no, you have no point, since they make tons of them anyways. That cake would be done in any case, it would just be sold to a straight couple a few hours later. It requires no moral involvement of the baker, unlike a special order.

Generally wedding cakes for made specifically for the event, they aren't just sitting there on a shelf. In the Stutzman case, she offered to sell them the flowers and raw materials for the event and just not arrange them, but this didn't prevent her losing a lawsuit against her.

If on the other hand couples aren't asking for a cake, a photographer or a florist to make things specifically for a same-sex wedding, then that is different.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Many of us are bullied by LGBT leftists. Just ask Baronelle Stutzman who had to shut down her business. Does "it get better" for her ?

she absolutely did not have to shut down her business. what are you even talking about?

She was given the choice of providing flowers to same-sex marriages

exactly.

Yes, that's right you always have a choice.  Your livelihood or your moral identity.  Why would anyone complain, they at least get one or the other?   They should just be grateful they aren't stripped of their capacity for free will altogether.

if your moral identity is founded on hatred of minorities, then it's not a moral identity worth protecting.

It's not a matter of hating minorities.  Maybe if you would listen to people's objections for a second before you tried to make them illegal you would understand that.

You know what's not worth protecting?  The right to call in the government and punish people  every time you don't get your way.

hatred, contempt, same difference. the point is that her supposed "moral identity" apparently rests on the idea that homosexuality is a defect or whatever.

see bolded portion above.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I guess people who object to sex before marriage just hate single people too?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I guess people who object to sex before marriage just hate single people too?

what? shua, i don't think you're very good at this whole comparison thing tbqh

You believe that someone can't oppose an act related to sexuality unless the hate the person doing it, when it comes to homosexuality, then why not sex before marriage?  Why there someone just has a moral belief, but you assume that anyone is full of hate and contempt if they say "I don't agree with this thing you are doing, so I'm sorry I can't take part in it, but I hope we can still be friends."

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I guess people who object to sex before marriage just hate single people too?

what? shua, i don't think you're very good at this whole comparison thing tbqh

You believe that someone can't oppose an act related to sexuality unless the hate the person doing it, when it comes to homosexuality, then why not sex before marriage?  Why there someone just has a moral belief, but you assume that anyone is full of hate and contempt if they say "I don't agree with this thing you are doing, so I'm sorry I can't take part in it, but I hope we can still be friends."

if you have a violent aversion to gay marriage that you do not have to straight marriage, then you believe that gay people are not worth as much as straight people. it's very simple.

a "violent" aversion?

Why is it hard to understand that some people think of marriage and gender in fundamentally different terms than you do, and that it's not just about how much they like gay people?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I guess people who object to sex before marriage just hate single people too?

what? shua, i don't think you're very good at this whole comparison thing tbqh

You believe that someone can't oppose an act related to sexuality unless the hate the person doing it, when it comes to homosexuality, then why not sex before marriage?  Why there someone just has a moral belief, but you assume that anyone is full of hate and contempt if they say "I don't agree with this thing you are doing, so I'm sorry I can't take part in it, but I hope we can still be friends."

if you have a violent aversion to gay marriage that you do not have to straight marriage, then you believe that gay people are not worth as much as straight people. it's very simple.

a "violent" aversion?

yes?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

why is it so hard to understand that those people's views are objectively bad? we don't defend people who believe vaccines are evil or people who believe black people are worthless, so why are we supposed to defend people who believe gay people are worthless?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

spare me

And now we get to the heart of the issue: the people whose views you consider to be "objectively" bad (I don't know why you get to decide, you obviously haven't taken the time to really listen to anyone you disagree with on this) are people you therefore don't believe have any rights.  I find that disgusting and horrible, but I'm not going to try to force "rehabilitation" on you, because I'm not an authoritarian scumbag.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Very interesting to listen to a straight person rail against a member of the queer community for "not listening to the arguments" of people who are against same-sex marriage.

Um, we're the ones who are on the receiving end of this crap all the time. Whatever backwards justification a person can come up with to legitimize their opposition to marriage equality really doesn't mean anything. With respect, same-sex marriage is about people who have same-sex attraction, and only people who have same-sex attraction. So we're the ones who get to be the barometers for whether hate is an active part of the equation. While it may be true that some anti-SSMers genuinely believe they can be against SSM without hating gay people (and perhaps some actually don't hate gay people), what they believe in this situation is moot. Because their words and actions impact the LGBT community whether there's intentional hate or not. And those viewpoints are oppressive, unjust, spread misconceptions, fuel distrust, encourage harassment, beat gay people into submission, nurture self-hate and depression, and, in general, make life worse for people who are not straight. So, for the last time, whether a person "intends" to hate means piss-all. It's a consolation prize. Because their actions and attitudes are hateful either way.

So no, I will not accommodate this garbage just because a few bigoted imbeciles can't get over themselves and accept positive change that has nothing to do with them. If you oppose equal marriage, you are either a bigot or stupid. Prove me wrong.

How am I supposed to prove you wrong when you offer nothing but tautology?   Me giving you examples of people who oppose gay marriage being nice to gay people clearly is not going to change your mind.

I will say this, that the more hateful the opposition to gay marriage is, the more it tends to draw attention to itself.  People quietly minding their own business and being friends to gay people while opposing gay marriage aren't so obvious in their opposition until they are asked to do something they disagree with, or they see people attacked for having their position.

And if you think that all gay people believe that those who oppose gay marriage are hateful, then you are just wrong, you don't speak for all gay people on this.  I'm sorry your experiences have led you to your position.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Very interesting to listen to a straight person rail against a member of the queer community for "not listening to the arguments" of people who are against same-sex marriage.

I suggest you don't call shua straight. He gets very pissy about you "defining his sexuality" when he didn't "give you permission" to do so.

This, despite the fact that he identifies as a male and posts in the Hot Guys Thread, while twisting himself in knots to defend Indiana's RFRA law, putting the desires of religious conservatives to discriminate and legally disassociate themselves with LGBT people over the rights of LGBT people to go about their lives without discrimination, arguing you can oppose LGBT rights while not being straight yourself, and that supporting discrimination against LGBT people totally doesn't mean you hate them!

So basically, he's an unnecessarily wordy CountryClasslessSF going on about the persecution of "people of faith" without all the thread derailing. There's no point in arguing with people like them. Just pray for people like him to figure out how to accept themselves.

Kudos on the rest of your post though!

What are you insinuating?   Can't handle the fact that not everyone fits into your categories like sardines?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So, we should respect ISIS fighters, after all, they only follow their moral identity!

ISIS fighters kill innocent people.  That's a rather fundamental issue.   A better example: We should respect people who want to wear hijab, and not complain about how they are supposedly self-hating women who hurt our liberal feels.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Some people used to see marriage and race in fundamentally different terms that we do. That doesn't stop us from seeing that viewpoint as deplorable.

Do I really have to explain why the relation between race and marriage and between gender and marriage are different?

If gender were not a crucial aspect of human society throughout history, there would be no such thing as marriage, at least as we know it.
All those who just won the right to get married to their same-sex partner should thank our predecessors that gender has been an important social category throughout history.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I said the consequence of their actions is to spread hate. I did not say they themselves are hateful. I said it doesn't matter if the individuals are hateful or not. A few instances of anti-SSMers being nice does not undue the depth of damage they've done in spreading the culture they spread.

If a gay kid hears their parents are against gay rights, the message that it's somehow less acceptable to be gay still comes through loud and clear... with or without hate.

So, again, it doesn't matter. You're missing my point in your obsession to validate those who would see us be lesser members of society... and for the life of me, I can't understand why. If a religion says one thing against all the better judgement of decades' worth of experience in real life, you'd think the intuitive thing would be to realize that affording everyone equal rights is the way to go. Sadly, some people can't see it that way. They should. Religious freedom be damned. Because it really is that simple. "Religious freedom" is not an excuse to treat people who are different in a such a way as to cause them negative outcomes.

I guess the good they do for gay people as individuals doesn't matter, because of this one position, they're all bigots who are to blame for everything that's ever happened to gay people and deserve whatever they get.  Sorry, I can't respect that. 

Yeah, if a gay kid hears their parents oppose some aspect of gay rights, or gay marriage, that can hurt. I can definitely see that.  But what is the response?  Resenting the parent for it, or having a conversation to explain one's own feelings and see where they are coming from, and maybe convince them down the road, instead of burning bridges?