Florist who refused to provide flowers for gay wedding rejects offer to settle discrimination case (California, Connecticut)

[Slowpoke_TX]

Originally Posted by Petunia 100

Exactly. Men can but women cannot.

Wrong. The ability to marry a partner of the opposite sex is enjoyed by both men and women.


If men were allowed to marry a person of either sex, but women were allowed to marry men only, then that would be a discriminatory law.

[Slowpoke_TX]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

So women can only be equal to other women and men can only be equal to other men?

A law that applies to any woman must apply uniformly to all women. Likewise, a law that applies to any man must apply uniformly to all men.

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Where does it say anything about same sex marriage? Where does it say anything about marriage at all?

It doesn't say anything about marriage - which is why claiming that it allows same-sex marriage is a stretch, to say the least.

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

If sexual orientation is a choice, why on earth would anyone choose to be homosexual?

I never said that sexual orientation is a choice. I said that sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic. There is a vast difference between the two.

[trishguard]

Originally Posted by jjrose

Did I post anything about sexual orientation?

It seems that I discussed the sex of the people, which like race is an immutable trait.

Not according to transexuals.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

Everything you have posted is about sexual orientation.

Please re-read what I wrote, and show me where I mentioned sexual orientation

"Black can marry black, but white can not
White can marry white, but black can not
Equal right?

Same thing as

Man can marry woman, but woman can not
Woman can marry man, but man can not."

It seems that I mentioned race, and sex, not sexual orientation.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

Wrong. The ability to marry a partner of the opposite sex is enjoyed by both men and women.


If men were allowed to marry a person of either sex, but women were allowed to marry men only, then that would be a discriminatory law.

And everyone was allowed to marry someone of their own race. Equal rights!

Oh wait, that argument failed in court.

[Petunia 100]

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

Wrong. The ability to marry a partner of the opposite sex is enjoyed by both men and women.

If men were allowed to marry a person of either sex, but women were allowed to marry men only, then that would be a discriminatory law.

If the partner must be of the opposite sex, then gender is being considered. However, gender is not supposed to be a consideration in civil rights or civil liberties.

[Petunia 100]

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

Everything you have posted is about sexual orientation.

Read it again. Gender and sexual orientation are different things.

[Petunia 100]

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

A law that applies to any woman must apply uniformly to all women. Likewise, a law that applies to any man must apply uniformly to all men.

Please cite the law which says laws must apply uniformly to all men and uniformly to all women, but that the two may be different.

The 14th amendment says "all persons". There is no distinction made with respect to gender.

[alpha_1976]

Why people keep saying "Being homosexual is a choice"? I love ladies and I don't seem to remember when I made "that" choice to be a heterosexual

[LifeIsGood01]

Originally Posted by alpha_1976

Why people keep saying "Being homosexual is a choice"? I love ladies and I don't seem to remember when I made "that" choice to be a heterosexual

Well I saw in an interview that the pizza shop owner said he chose to be straight, which would imply that he had gay desires but squashed them with his choice.