Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov’t Settlement Offer

[Katzndogz]

Then if the Christian proprietors go bankrupt from lack of customers, let THAT be their punishment and not some Rainbow Reicht forcing their dogma down their throats using the courts as a piping bag.

Except they don't go bankrupt. Their businesses increase. In every case. That includes Sweet Cakes where gays used actual violence against customers and vendors.

Well I think that was my hidden point. It seems that every time the LGBT jackboots trample another Christian, the numbers of backlash protestors increase.

The free market will settle this question. Let Christians put a sign above their door saying they don't do gay weddings as a matter of faith and principles and let them "lose all that money" when the droves of Christians supporters patronize their courageous and decent shop.

It's not just Christians who patronize businesses under attack. In many instances it's just people who are disgusted with gays and their demands.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Then if the Christian proprietors go bankrupt from lack of customers, let THAT be their punishment and not some Rainbow Reicht forcing their dogma down their throats using the courts as a piping bag.

Except they don't go bankrupt. Their businesses increase. In every case. That includes Sweet Cakes where gays used actual violence against customers and vendors.

Well I think that was my hidden point. It seems that every time the LGBT jackboots trample another Christian, the numbers of backlash protestors increase.

The free market will settle this question. Let Christians put a sign above their door saying they don't do gay weddings as a matter of faith and principles and let them "lose all that money" when the droves of Christians supporters patronize their courageous and decent shop.

Well sure, except the sign, if followed up by actions, is illegal. Knock yourself out. I love seeing Christians get dragged into court.

And business better be good to pay off that 150K fine: Bakery risks large fine for anti-gay discrimination

"In October, the Kleins told The Daily Signal that a large fine from the state would “definitely” be enough to bankrupt the couple and their five children. Meanwhile, footage of Melissa Klein's emotional speech about the case at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. went viral in the blogosphere around the same time."
Sweet Cakes By Melissa Violated Oregon Law By Turning Away Lesbian Couple Officials Rule

 

[bodecea]

The division will just get deeper and wider as Christians start limiting what they broadly offer. It doesn't mean that gays will be able to force artists to perform for them. It means that Christian artists will offer their talent only within the community of Christians.

Right...it might double from one to two of them....EEEEK!

We've already seen that in the futile protests the gay mafia tried to agitate against Chick fil A and Phil Robertson.

Right, may the gods forbid anyone get between a RWr and their junk food and trash tv!!!!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Then if the Christian proprietors go bankrupt from lack of customers, let THAT be their punishment and not some Rainbow Reicht forcing their dogma down their throats using the courts as a piping bag.

Except they don't go bankrupt. Their businesses increase. In every case. That includes Sweet Cakes where gays used actual violence against customers and vendors.

Well I think that was my hidden point. It seems that every time the LGBT jackboots trample another Christian, the numbers of backlash protestors increase.

The free market will settle this question. Let Christians put a sign above their door saying they don't do gay weddings as a matter of faith and principles and let them "lose all that money" when the droves of Christians supporters patronize their courageous and decent shop.

It's not just Christians who patronize businesses under attack. In many instances it's just people who are disgusted with gays and their demands.

Hitler Youth for Jesus and Homophobia then...

 

[bodecea]

Then if the Christian proprietors go bankrupt from lack of customers, let THAT be their punishment and not some Rainbow Reicht forcing their dogma down their throats using the courts as a piping bag.

Except they don't go bankrupt. Their businesses increase. In every case. That includes Sweet Cakes where gays used actual violence against customers and vendors.

Well I think that was my hidden point. It seems that every time the LGBT jackboots trample another Christian, the numbers of backlash protestors increase.

The free market will settle this question. Let Christians put a sign above their door saying they don't do gay weddings as a matter of faith and principles and let them "lose all that money" when the droves of Christians supporters patronize their courageous and decent shop.

It's not just Christians who patronize businesses under attack. In many instances it's just people who are disgusted with gays and their demands.

That's fine. Just like it's not just gays that accept legal gay marriage.

 

[Katzndogz]

While it is illegal to post a sign saying that business services will not be offered to same sex couples, it is not illegal and specifically authorized by at least two judges, to post a sign saying that due to religious beliefs wedding services are no longer offered to the public.

This does not preclude private arrangements. It does not prohibit services not performed on business premises.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

While it is illegal to post a sign saying that business services will not be offered to same sex couples, it is not illegal and specifically authorized by at least two judges, to post a sign saying that due to religious beliefs wedding services are no longer offered to the public.

This does not preclude private arrangements. It does not prohibit services not performed on business premises.

As long as you go underground, go for it. We can ferret you out if you break the law. That's the fun part of dragging you into court.

 

[Nosmo King]

The division will just get deeper and wider as Christians start limiting what they broadly offer. It doesn't mean that gays will be able to force artists to perform for them. It means that Christian artists will offer their talent only within the community of Christians.

Great, go away. Build your walls, so we can keep you inside them.

Then you lose. Your domination is ended. Live and die among your own degenerate kind.

Spoken like a Victorian, and where is that archaic set of rules of moral comportment now?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I don't agree with that, your actions and how you live your life is what determines it. God gave us a set of rules, it's up to us to follow those rules or suffer the consequences of breaking them

you contradicted yourself, but thats ok.

How so? There are rules, God doesn't make anyone obey them or break them, free will. It's on us.

How we live our lives is up to us. The final judgement belongs to God.

I understand where you are coming from but how we live our lives determines our fate. Once you draw your last breath your fate is sealed

Forgiveness is in the hands of God. Our fate is not sealed until he decides that it is.

It's in this life we're given the opportunity to repent. I do see both sides of the argument, as a Catholic, for we believe God's mercy works on both sides of the veil and we shouldn't limit God, but as a general rule, Scripture informs us, "It is appointed once for man to die, then to judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). That tells us there should be no expectation of an opportunity to repent once we've crossed over.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

While it is illegal to post a sign saying that business services will not be offered to same sex couples, it is not illegal and specifically authorized by at least two judges, to post a sign saying that due to religious beliefs wedding services are no longer offered to the public.

This does not preclude private arrangements. It does not prohibit services not performed on business premises.

There's always ways to get around the rules.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The last 4 times gay marriage was voted on, by the public or the state legislators it passed and your side lost.

I really don't have a "side". I think gay marriage is damaging to society, but I am fully willing to abide by the will of a majority of the people. I just want the people to decide, not one or two judges.

You free to believe gay marriage damages society but the public and courts are not buying it. The will of the people is entirely irrelevant if that will is violating the U.S. Constitution. Besides, you cannot even demonstrate how gay marriage damages society.

total horseshit! the constitution was established by the will of the people, every law on our books was established by the will of the people. This is a representative democratic republic. The people and their elected representatives decide what is legal and what is not.

as to damaging society. males and females have different genetic roles in human behavior. Deviating from those genetic roles damages the fabric of socielty. and, I don't care a flip whether you agree with me or not.

Like it or lump it, the will of the people is still subject to certain consitituional guarantees. The people pass laws, the laws get challenged, the courts rule on the merits of the challenge pertaining to the law, and if those laws violate the Constitution or not. That is how our system works.

Allowing gays access to marriage in no way prevents hertosexual males and females from fulfilling their genetic roles. Do think people are going to stop marrying and having children if gays marry? Clearly they are not.

Actually, and I've told this story before, there are many who are afraid of that very thing. I heard on the radio years ago, the President of the CWA (Concerned Women of America) state that if gay marriage was legalized women would divorce their husbands in DROVES to marry each other. Now...........................what an interesting thing to say.

We only have your word for that.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The division will just get deeper and wider as Christians start limiting what they broadly offer. It doesn't mean that gays will be able to force artists to perform for them. It means that Christian artists will offer their talent only within the community of Christians.

Then if the Christian proprietors go bankrupt from lack of customers, let THAT be their punishment and not some Rainbow Reicht forcing their dogma down their throats using the courts as a piping bag.

Christians will thrive in spite of persecution. This isn't our first time to the rodeo.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm sorry. Still not following. How are bigots being discriminated against?

Nope. I'm just not getting it. If I don't like paying taxes, am I being discriminated against because I have to pay whether I like it or not? If the law is applied to everyone, how is it not equal?

I didn't say taxes were a violation of equal protection. But PA laws are. They target people with biases regarding protected classes and punish them for acting on their biases. People with more popular biases get a free pass. That's not equal protection. If we're going to say it's illegal for a business to discriminate based on age, sex, religion, race, etc... then, if we're to honor the principle of equal protection, we must make it illegal to discriminate against them for any reason at all. Which is, of course, insane.

Laws against non-governmental discrimination are idiotic. The "right" to not be discriminated against makes as much sense as the "right to be liked" or the "right to get laid".

So, if I understand you, while the laws apply to everyone equally they are discriminatory against those who want to break them. Because only the law breakers have any consequences for breaking the law.

No. You don't understand me. Perhaps you're just strawmanning, but on the outside chance that you really don't understand what I'm saying, I'll elaborate.

Discrimination laws don't apply to everyone equally. They don't outlaw all irrational biases - only those that aren't currently in vogue. They designate select groups for special treatment. That's not equal protection.

I might see the problem. The 14th amendment says there must be equal protection under the laws. It does not say the laws must make everyone equal. The laws must be applied to everyone equally. A white business owner can't deny service to a black customer and a black business owner can't deny service to a white customer. Equal application of the law. So long as they are applied equally, there is nothing in PA laws which create discrimination. There is no obligation the law must cover every possible group, only that the law is applied equally to everyone.

The way I see it, if we're going to protect religious groups and racial minorities from discrimination, we should protect gays too, and fat people and ugly people and stupid people, people with annoying voices, short people, smart people, poor people, rich people, etc, etc. ...

Anything less is just playing favorites and amounts to government parsing out privilege.

So...PA laws are biased because they pick on people with biases, who act on those biases.....?

Yes! And it's crucial we understand why that matters. It's far more important that laws aren't biased because they are coercive in nature. You can end up dead or in jail if you defy them. Personal bigots aren't empowered to kill you or put you in jail. All they can do is refuse to bake you a cake.

Or sell you food, or rent you lodging, or employment. While this particular case deals with a luxury item, it is based upon a law which prevents discrimination on necessities. What you are actually arguing is the state has no place in the protection of its citizens from discrimination by other citizens, regardless of how destructive that might be to the welfare of the community as a whole. I certainly can't agree with you on that.

And apparently you can't see the profound difference between being refused a service you want, and being arrested by the police.

I don't think anyone was arrested, but yes I do see the difference. In the case of the refusal you are the victim. In the case of the arrest, you are the perpetrator. It is called breaking the law.

 

[PratchettFan]

That's an interesting point. Why is it that many people, then they look at gay people or talk about gay people AUTOMATICALLY default to thinking about what they do in bed? Is that normal? Am I missing out on something by not AUTOMATICALLY defaulting to think about what straight people do in bed when I meet them or talk about them?

Because they shove it in our faces. You still haven't answered the question of why what people do in the bedroom needs to be everyone's business vis a vis gay rights.

How exactly do we "shove it in your faces"? By admitting we exist? Why do you keep focusing on what we do in the bedroom? Do you do the same with every heterosexual you meet? Are you undressing them with your eyes all the time? Are you getting flustered thinking of what they do with their husband or wife when they are alone?

oh come on. The gay agenda is not about equality, rights, or freedom. Its about using government to force societal acceptance of your deviant lifestyle. You are so desperate to be called normal, but you are not, and never will be. the government can dictate whatever it chooses, but you cannot change mammalian biology.

No, it isn't. And they are normal, just as red heads are normal even though the majority of people aren't red heads.

So hair color and homosexuality are equally "normal" ? Thats the weakest argument yet posted.

All humans have some hair on their bodies, but only half have a penis and half have a vagina. Our genitalia is there for a purpose, the penis goes into the vagina in order to reproduce the species. In humans sex is also a form or recreation and pleasure.

A penis up a rectum or two women fingering each other is not a form of normal human sexual activity. Its an aberation, its deviant behavior.

I don't know if its genetic (disease) or a choice (mental disease). But its not normal.

Yes. They are equally normal. I get that you think it is aberrant behavior but you are utterly wrong.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I didn't say taxes were a violation of equal protection. But PA laws are. They target people with biases regarding protected classes and punish them for acting on their biases. People with more popular biases get a free pass. That's not equal protection. If we're going to say it's illegal for a business to discriminate based on age, sex, religion, race, etc... then, if we're to honor the principle of equal protection, we must make it illegal to discriminate against them for any reason at all. Which is, of course, insane.

Laws against non-governmental discrimination are idiotic. The "right" to not be discriminated against makes as much sense as the "right to be liked" or the "right to get laid".

So, if I understand you, while the laws apply to everyone equally they are discriminatory against those who want to break them. Because only the law breakers have any consequences for breaking the law.

No. You don't understand me. Perhaps you're just strawmanning, but on the outside chance that you really don't understand what I'm saying, I'll elaborate.

Discrimination laws don't apply to everyone equally. They don't outlaw all irrational biases - only those that aren't currently in vogue. They designate select groups for special treatment. That's not equal protection.

I might see the problem. The 14th amendment says there must be equal protection under the laws. It does not say the laws must make everyone equal. The laws must be applied to everyone equally. A white business owner can't deny service to a black customer and a black business owner can't deny service to a white customer. Equal application of the law. So long as they are applied equally, there is nothing in PA laws which create discrimination. There is no obligation the law must cover every possible group, only that the law is applied equally to everyone.

The way I see it, if we're going to protect religious groups and racial minorities from discrimination, we should protect gays too, and fat people and ugly people and stupid people, people with annoying voices, short people, smart people, poor people, rich people, etc, etc. ...

Anything less is just playing favorites and amounts to government parsing out privilege.

So...PA laws are biased because they pick on people with biases, who act on those biases.....?

Yes! And it's crucial we understand why that matters. It's far more important that laws aren't biased because they are coercive in nature. You can end up dead or in jail if you defy them. Personal bigots aren't empowered to kill you or put you in jail. All they can do is refuse to bake you a cake.

Or sell you food, or rent you lodging, or employment. While this particular case deals with a luxury item, it is based upon a law which prevents discrimination on necessities. What you are actually arguing is the state has no place in the protection of its citizens from discrimination by other citizens, regardless of how destructive that might be to the welfare of the community as a whole. I certainly can't agree with you on that.

And apparently you can't see the profound difference between being refused a service you want, and being arrested by the police.

I don't think anyone was arrested, but yes I do see the difference. In the case of the refusal you are the victim. In the case of the arrest, you are the perpetrator. It is called breaking the law.

Any law which forces one to promote deviancy is illegitimate law. Deviancy is destructive ... and No American is obligated to obey such nonsense.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, because the baker does not sell them. If he or she did, and refused to sell them to a Christian, THAT would be discrimination.

wait a minute. He sells toppers with a man and a woman. Is he not discriminating by not selling toppers with two men or two women?


I am just trying to get everyone to think this through and understand where it will lead.

No, it isn't discriminating because he doesn't sell the toppers. He is free to choose the products he sells. He is not free to refuse to sell a product he sells to someone because he is a bigot against them.

The PA laws do not dictate what a business may sell.

But they mandate who he must sell to. Want to see real discrimination? Walk down a street in Dearborn Michigan wearing a yamaca and reciting jewish scripture, OR, walk down the same street wearing a large gold cross and reciting the psalms. You would likely be stoned, beaten up, or maybe killed.

there is not tolerance in islam. But yet, you libs insist that we give them tolerance in all things. hypocrisy, stupidity, ignorance? which is it?

Hello? What you've described is against the law (beating someone up, etc., because of their religion). So how is enforcing laws against Muslims beating people up giving them tolerance?

In muslim enclaves in this country and in europe those laws are not being enforced. We are tolerating illegal behavior because of the perpetrator's minority status. Its insane.

Nonsense. That is just not true.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Because they shove it in our faces. You still haven't answered the question of why what people do in the bedroom needs to be everyone's business vis a vis gay rights.

How exactly do we "shove it in your faces"? By admitting we exist? Why do you keep focusing on what we do in the bedroom? Do you do the same with every heterosexual you meet? Are you undressing them with your eyes all the time? Are you getting flustered thinking of what they do with their husband or wife when they are alone?

oh come on. The gay agenda is not about equality, rights, or freedom. Its about using government to force societal acceptance of your deviant lifestyle. You are so desperate to be called normal, but you are not, and never will be. the government can dictate whatever it chooses, but you cannot change mammalian biology.

No, it isn't. And they are normal, just as red heads are normal even though the majority of people aren't red heads.

So hair color and homosexuality are equally "normal" ? Thats the weakest argument yet posted.

All humans have some hair on their bodies, but only half have a penis and half have a vagina. Our genitalia is there for a purpose, the penis goes into the vagina in order to reproduce the species. In humans sex is also a form or recreation and pleasure.

A penis up a rectum or two women fingering each other is not a form of normal human sexual activity. Its an aberation, its deviant behavior.

I don't know if its genetic (disease) or a choice (mental disease). But its not normal.

Yes. They are equally normal. I get that you think it is aberrant behavior but you are utterly wrong.

ROFLMNAO!

And once AGAIN, the ANSA Cult demonstrates that Sexual Abnormality is the consequence of a disordered mind; a perversion of human reasoning.

Reader, lets' review the assertion: Sexual Abnormality is a mental disorder.

The above contributor is a professed homosexual... now in terms of sexual abnormality, that's a profound example of such... So the question becomes, is the above contributor; an Advocate of Normalizing Sexual Abnormality presenting any indication of Perverse Reasoning, reasoning which results from a disordered mind?

Understand, that "Homosexuality" is an act... it is the decision to take action resultant from an impulse... an impulse which is generated from the mental processes; "ideas" which are formed in the mind. False ideas which are presented as truth. False in that the mind says 'the person of the same gender is suitable and appropriate for consideration for sexual interaction... when the mind flickers a sexual component related to a person of the same gender, the disorder mind accepts the notion... while the ordered mind recognizes the impulse as errant, quickly rejecting it as false information.

The distinction between the ordered mind and the disordered mind, is that the ordered mind possess the means to know the truth, or to know when the what the mind is sending is wrong... .

It is the acceptance of false ideas as truth, which separates the disordered mind from the whole mind.

So the question becomes; quite simply: "Do we find any signs of those who have professed themselves as Sexually Abnormal, presenting symptoms of a mind which is representing falsity as truth? And we can determine that by simply looking at their public statements, to see if there is any evidence of claiming that which is false to be truth.

We know that just last night the contributor provided us with this glimpse, where she has repeatedly advised you, the Reader that Medical Science says that Homosexuality is normal sexuality.

In truth, normal means simply that something conforms to the standard. The Human Sexuality Standard is established by the human physiological standard. Homosexuality, not only deviates from that standard, it deviates as far from that standard as is possible.

This is an axiomatic fact. The Human Species is designed with two complimenting genders, specifically designed for procreation, procreation is accomplished through the joining of one example of the male gender with one example of the female gender. One certainly does not require a doctoral level understanding of human physiology to recognize this otherwise indisputable fact, but it follows that possessing a deeper understanding of the specifics of human biology, would not set one privileged above anyone else of reason, with regard to understanding BASIC HUMAN ANATOMY and the purposes of the genitals relevant to the respective genders.

So... > is < the position so often brayed by the contributor, claiming that medical science 'disagrees' that behavior which deviates as far from the standard normality as is humanly possible, is abnormal.' truthful?

Does demanding that something that is so demonstrably false, to be truth... a sign of an ordered mind?

I'll leave it to you, the Reader who the contributor seeks to advise through such that 'perspective'... to determine if your interests and the interests of your children, you community and your nation are served through a perspective which holds that something so obviously false is absolute truth.

Would you want your children to use this form of reasoning as they make critical decisions, the consequences of which they will carry with them for the rest of their lives?

Think about it... its your decision and you don't need to share it with me; meaning that it's a private matter.

 

[PratchettFan]

So, if I understand you, while the laws apply to everyone equally they are discriminatory against those who want to break them. Because only the law breakers have any consequences for breaking the law.

No. You don't understand me. Perhaps you're just strawmanning, but on the outside chance that you really don't understand what I'm saying, I'll elaborate.

Discrimination laws don't apply to everyone equally. They don't outlaw all irrational biases - only those that aren't currently in vogue. They designate select groups for special treatment. That's not equal protection.

I might see the problem. The 14th amendment says there must be equal protection under the laws. It does not say the laws must make everyone equal. The laws must be applied to everyone equally. A white business owner can't deny service to a black customer and a black business owner can't deny service to a white customer. Equal application of the law. So long as they are applied equally, there is nothing in PA laws which create discrimination. There is no obligation the law must cover every possible group, only that the law is applied equally to everyone.

The way I see it, if we're going to protect religious groups and racial minorities from discrimination, we should protect gays too, and fat people and ugly people and stupid people, people with annoying voices, short people, smart people, poor people, rich people, etc, etc. ...

Anything less is just playing favorites and amounts to government parsing out privilege.

So...PA laws are biased because they pick on people with biases, who act on those biases.....?

Yes! And it's crucial we understand why that matters. It's far more important that laws aren't biased because they are coercive in nature. You can end up dead or in jail if you defy them. Personal bigots aren't empowered to kill you or put you in jail. All they can do is refuse to bake you a cake.

Or sell you food, or rent you lodging, or employment. While this particular case deals with a luxury item, it is based upon a law which prevents discrimination on necessities. What you are actually arguing is the state has no place in the protection of its citizens from discrimination by other citizens, regardless of how destructive that might be to the welfare of the community as a whole. I certainly can't agree with you on that.

And apparently you can't see the profound difference between being refused a service you want, and being arrested by the police.

I don't think anyone was arrested, but yes I do see the difference. In the case of the refusal you are the victim. In the case of the arrest, you are the perpetrator. It is called breaking the law.

Any law which forces one to promote deviancy is illegitimate law. Deviancy is destructive ... and No American is obligated to obey such nonsense.

I have heard that. It is ridiculous. You certainly have the choice to disobey a law, but there are consequences for doing it. You can then explain to the judge why you are not obligated.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No. You don't understand me. Perhaps you're just strawmanning, but on the outside chance that you really don't understand what I'm saying, I'll elaborate.

Discrimination laws don't apply to everyone equally. They don't outlaw all irrational biases - only those that aren't currently in vogue. They designate select groups for special treatment. That's not equal protection.

I might see the problem. The 14th amendment says there must be equal protection under the laws. It does not say the laws must make everyone equal. The laws must be applied to everyone equally. A white business owner can't deny service to a black customer and a black business owner can't deny service to a white customer. Equal application of the law. So long as they are applied equally, there is nothing in PA laws which create discrimination. There is no obligation the law must cover every possible group, only that the law is applied equally to everyone.

The way I see it, if we're going to protect religious groups and racial minorities from discrimination, we should protect gays too, and fat people and ugly people and stupid people, people with annoying voices, short people, smart people, poor people, rich people, etc, etc. ...

Anything less is just playing favorites and amounts to government parsing out privilege.

Yes! And it's crucial we understand why that matters. It's far more important that laws aren't biased because they are coercive in nature. You can end up dead or in jail if you defy them. Personal bigots aren't empowered to kill you or put you in jail. All they can do is refuse to bake you a cake.

Or sell you food, or rent you lodging, or employment. While this particular case deals with a luxury item, it is based upon a law which prevents discrimination on necessities. What you are actually arguing is the state has no place in the protection of its citizens from discrimination by other citizens, regardless of how destructive that might be to the welfare of the community as a whole. I certainly can't agree with you on that.

And apparently you can't see the profound difference between being refused a service you want, and being arrested by the police.

I don't think anyone was arrested, but yes I do see the difference. In the case of the refusal you are the victim. In the case of the arrest, you are the perpetrator. It is called breaking the law.

Any law which forces one to promote deviancy is illegitimate law. Deviancy is destructive ... and No American is obligated to obey such nonsense.

I have heard that. It is ridiculous. You certainly have the choice to disobey a law, but there are consequences for doing it. You can then explain to the judge why you are not obligated.

Happy to do so.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, marriage is controlled by state laws but those laws are subject to certain constitutional guarantees as described in the Windsor ruling. And no, a constitutional amendment is not requited for gay marriage to be legal in all 50 states. Presently 37 out of 50 states are marrying gays without one so that is merely your opinion.

that state by state approach will not work, and it will lead to legalization of multiple marriage and all other forms of human groupings being called marriages.

a constitutional amendment would fix it forever and fix it clearly and precisely.

Gays don't want a vote on an amendment because they know they would lose. They lost twice in the left wing state of california.

The last 4 times gay marriage was voted on, by the public or the state legislators it passed and your side lost.

I really don't have a "side". I think gay marriage is damaging to society, but I am fully willing to abide by the will of a majority of the people. I just want the people to decide, not one or two judges.

You free to believe gay marriage damages society but the public and courts are not buying it. The will of the people is entirely irrelevant if that will is violating the U.S. Constitution. Besides, you cannot even demonstrate how gay marriage damages society.

total horseshit! the constitution was established by the will of the people, every law on our books was established by the will of the people. This is a representative democratic republic. The people and their elected representatives decide what is legal and what is not.

as to damaging society. males and females have different genetic roles in human behavior. Deviating from those genetic roles damages the fabric of socielty. and, I don't care a flip whether you agree with me or not.

Then the law fining the florist was established by the will of the people. What is your problem then?