Anti-Gay participants, why do you not accept homosexuality?

[AVG-JOE]

I do not care at all what others do. When they get laws passed that requires my participation in their lifestyle, I draw the line.

Nobody is requiring you to participate.

I know a couple of bakers and a few county clerks who would disagree

The bakers should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason and they would have had they not called the news media to complain instead of just bidding the job at a ridiculous rate.

The county clerks are government employees who should NOT have a choice in whom they'll serve.

The SSM debate is not about general acceptance or legislating hate, both of which are impossible, the SSM debate is about granting government issued benefits and advantages to ALL two-person partnerships with documentation or granting them to none.

Until 'We The People' truly means ALL the people with regards to government advantages and entitlements, we are failing the US Constitution and should be ashamed.

 

[Bonzi]

This isn't a "weed them out and punish them" thing. I'm curious as to why people think its a choice and why they are against it.

Everyone chooses to engage in sex acts.
I tend to agree with Wake in his analysis above regarding the "choice" vs. "in born"
As a Christian, I believe that it is best for people to not live sinful lives, for themselves and for the community.

 

[hipeter924]

I do not care at all what others do. When they get laws passed that requires my participation in their lifestyle, I draw the line.

Nobody is requiring you to participate.

I know a couple of bakers and a few county clerks who would disagree

The bakers should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason and they would have had they not called the news media to complain instead of just bidding the job at a ridiculous rate.

The county clerks are government employees who should NOT have a choice in whom they'll serve.

The SSM debate is not about general acceptance or legislating hate, both of which are impossible, the SSM debate is about granting government issued benefits and advantages to ALL two-person partnerships with documentation or granting them to none.

Until 'We The People' truly means ALL the people with regards to government advantages and entitlements, we are failing the US Constitution and should be ashamed.

Many state laws say to the contrary, and there is no constutional protection for a business to do so on basis of race post de-segregation.

So LGBT groups can sue for discrimination, if a business publicly endorses a political or religious opinion for their refusal of service.

If the florists/bakers had said 'we don't accept your order' and directed x to another retailer, this wouldn't be an issue.

Changing that would require repeal of laws that cover discrimination on basis of race and religion in most states, and there would probably be Supreme Court challenges to such drastic changes.