Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sexual "orientation" is not protected at all. Only in the most recent times
have most laws changed. It was perfectly Constitutional for over 200 years
of this nation's history to "discriminate against" sexual "orientation".
Not only in marriage, but the acts themselves were illegal in various ways,
and to varying degrees. Just like pornography was considered obscene and
not protected as "free speech". Is that what I'd like to return to ? Yes.
And laws like the recent rash of crap from MS and NC will add fuel to the fire to have sexual orientation added to federal protections.
Then the poor bakers will just have to deal with it like all of the other did in the past.
Really? They didn't do it because the couple was gay. That's sexual orientation. Do I need to type slower so you comprehend?
No. The bakers in Oregon, for example, refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because they had a religious objection to gay marriage... NOT GAY PEOPLE... gay marriage. In fact they had provided other services to that same gay couple in the past with no objections at all. But they had an religious objection to making a contribution to this kind of an event.
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
No. The bakers in Oregon, for example, refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because they had a religious objection to gay marriage... NOT GAY PEOPLE... gay marriage. In fact they had provided other services to that same gay couple in the past with no objections at all. But they had an religious objection to making a contribution to this kind of an event.
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
I do tire of educating The Slow.
There's no need for the personal attacks. You can disagree, you can be wrong, I can be wrong, but you don't have to choose be a dick.
Time will tell about the outcome, but I have to say, I'm fairly confident that history will be on my side.
They did it because they are against gay marriage. Not because they are against gay people.
There is almost no point in making this most salient of points. It's almost as if the thought is to hard to think for them. Like it induces some sort of intellectual migraine that they must avoid at all costs.
So I should tolerate someone being intolerant of my sexual orientation?
OK
Good question. My answer when this situation occurs is never to expect others to be as well behaved as you are. Your orientation is your own and their beliefs is their own. Going your own way is not tolerating them. We all tend to go our own way every day to avoid unpleasantness.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
