The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends: bakers must pay 135 K

[ChrisL]

A bathroom isn't public business. Rendering your argument laughably pseudo-legal gibberish. As PA laws apply only to business. And what service is someone denied by gendered bathrooms? Nothing.

Remember, no court, no state, no legal authority has ever found that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws. Rendering your assertion more hapless nonsense that has no reflection in reality.

Predicting nothing, nor having the slightest relevance to any law. With your record of failure remaining perfect.

I mean, the law of averages alone would mandate that eventually you'd get something right. Yet you somehow always find a way to be wrong every single time. With your predictions and legal interpretations of everything from incest to poly marriage to gendered bathrooms demonstrated to be meaningless babble by history.

Try building a business without restrooms dummy, the government will deny you a permit! That makes it part of access laws.

Oh, another red herring you've been tossing around, the "it hasn't happend yet gambit"

The USSC, just recently made it FEDERALLY recognized that same sex and opposite sex couples were similarily situated, which by the way makes it plain that these couples MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY.

You realize that, right.

How about you attempt making an argument that doesn't imply that treating same sex marriage as similarily situated is appropriate.

So far it appears your against gay marriage.

You have crossed the line into being a pathetic jerk. You keep coming back to get your arse kicked though, so it's humorous.

I see, you remain without an argument.

Typical

I'll give you a chance at redemption

What is the remarkable difference between a married lesbian and a married male.

Remember, according to most public accomodation laws, you may not discriminate based on gender (sex) and many state you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation (heterosexuality).

So proceed.

No, you are just too dense to understand. That's another thing that is humorous.

You love looking stupid?

Lol. What? You see? Another demonstration of how stupid you are.

 

[ChrisL]

In the business offering a locker room, everyone has access to it. In the business offering wedding cakes, only straight people have access to it. Using your analogy, it would be illegal to bar homosexuals from using the locker room.

One must be seperate to be equal?

The other not?

I take it civil unions would have been fine with you for gays, right?

You do understand the legal standing that same sex couples were granted, right?

Here, I'll link to it again:Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I wonder when this little melt down will end. In 5 or 10 years, are you still going to be here wasting everyone's time and energy with your inane arguments?

No, in 5 or 10 years I'll simply be saying.......

Told Ya So!

Nope, sorry old man. The 1950s are over.

 

[Syriusly]

But now she can, besides this is about Public Acommodations.

Both couples are married, both should be accommodated equally.

They are accommodated equally. Remember, no court, no state, no legal authority has ever found that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws. Rendering your assertion more hapless nonsense that has no reflection in reality.

Predicting nothing, nor having the slightest relevance to any law. With your record of failure remaining perfect.

I mean, the law of averages alone would mandate that eventually you'd get something right. Yet you somehow always find a way to be wrong every single time. With your predictions and legal interpretations of everything from incest to poly marriage to gendered bathrooms demonstrated to be pseudo-legal gibberish by history.

The lesbian couple used the "similar situated" argument successfully to win the right to marry.

Says who? Remembering of course that you citing yourself is meaningless babble.

Are you now saying that gender really does matter?

You cannot claim similarity when it suits you, then claim you are not when it suits your fancy.

The lesbian is allowed in the locker room with the wife, who the lesbian is sexually attracted to, but the husband (who the lesbian claims she is similar to) is not?

Why? Some kind of MORALITY play?

Hmmmmmm, sounds kinda familiar?

WTF is wrong with you? The primary purposes of a locker room is to shower or get changed. Everyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference has access to that. The primary purpose of marriage is to make a life long commitment to the person you love. Homosexuals were denied that right.

Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.

Everyone has access to cake also

The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.

A bathroom isn't public business. Rendering your argument laughably pseudo-legal gibberish. As PA laws apply only to business. And what service is someone denied by gendered bathrooms? Nothing.

Remember, no court, no state, no legal authority has ever found that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws. Rendering your assertion more hapless nonsense that has no reflection in reality.

Predicting nothing, nor having the slightest relevance to any law. With your record of failure remaining perfect.

I mean, the law of averages alone would mandate that eventually you'd get something right. Yet you somehow always find a way to be wrong every single time. With your predictions and legal interpretations of everything from incest to poly marriage to gendered bathrooms demonstrated to be meaningless babble by history.

The USSC, just recently made it FEDERALLY recognized that same sex and opposite sex couples were similarily situated, which by the way makes it plain that these couples MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY.

Pop's meltdown continues.

Since admission to a locker room is for individuals- not couples- this is just another of your straw men.

 

[Syriusly]

In the business offering a locker room, everyone has access to it. In the business offering wedding cakes, only straight people have access to it. Using your analogy, it would be illegal to bar homosexuals from using the locker room.

One must be seperate to be equal?

The other not?

I take it civil unions would have been fine with you for gays, right?

You do understand the legal standing that same sex couples were granted, right?

Here, I'll link to it again:Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I wonder when this little melt down will end. In 5 or 10 years, are you still going to be here wasting everyone's time and energy with your inane arguments?

No, in 5 or 10 years I'll simply be saying.......

Told Ya So!

Its been 11 years since Massachusetts legalized same gender marriage.

And yet here you are- still unable to say "Told ya so!".

Pop's meltdown because of his butt hurt that same gender couples can marry continues.

 

[ChrisL]

One must be seperate to be equal?

The other not?

I take it civil unions would have been fine with you for gays, right?

You do understand the legal standing that same sex couples were granted, right?

Here, I'll link to it again:Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I wonder when this little melt down will end. In 5 or 10 years, are you still going to be here wasting everyone's time and energy with your inane arguments?

No, in 5 or 10 years I'll simply be saying.......

Told Ya So!

Its been 11 years since Massachusetts legalized same gender marriage.

And yet here you are- still unable to say "Told ya so!".

Pop's meltdown because of his butt hurt that same gender couples can marry continues.

Just goes to show how insecure some people are.

 

[emilynghiem]

Not at all. I've never known anyone who was fired from his job because he was fat. I've never known anyone who has been beaten up because he was fat.

I've known people who have been fired from their jobs because they were gay. I've known people who were beaten up because they were gay.

BAKE THE ******* CAKE AND SHUT THE **** UP YOU CHRISTIAN ASSHOLES.

Dear JoeB131

* obesity is a leading cause of bullying in children. what makes you think adults don't discriminate and bully by weight? you think that magically ends after children grow up and become adults? they don't carry on?

* look at modeling, look at professional drill and dance teams.
there are whole campaigns against the fashion industry and photoshopped magazine covers,
with the concern that obsession with body weight encourages eating disorders and phobias that can even kill

Oh wait. That's right.

With obesity in children, people are actually lobbying to change diets and get more exercise to counteract obesity!

But with spiritual healing that has helped people recover from Unwanted homosexual attractions and relations,
this isn't promoted as a natural choice of therapy, but censored and BANNED out of fear of conversion therapy which isn't the same thing.

Big difference.

In one instance, with obesity, people DO recognize when it is an unhealthy condition and needs to change. With homosexuality, the cases of people coming out and saying they changed, this is censored and attacked as lies.

This is why his response was comically weak. Fat people - at the very least because there are more of them - take a lot more abuse than gay people. But the point here isn't that they should be protected from discrimination too. The point is, everyone has their biases, and it's their right. Dictating our thoughts via government is totalitarian oppression. Period.

And they are protected from discrimination in Public Accommodation in some states. Maybe even more than gays are protected in.

ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Act 453 of 1976
AN ACT to define civil rights; to prohibit discriminatory practices, policies, and customs in the exercise of those rights based upon religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status;

Hi Seawytch
Technically, anything to do with Orientation (or gender based on something other than genetic designation at birth)
is FAITH based, NOT proven scientifically, and falls under CREED.

So equally does the belief that homosexuality is unnatural and against
someone's religion fall under CREED.

Two CREEDS are equal under law.

It is against Constitutional Ethics for the Govt to take one CREED over another.
To impose beliefs either "for or against" homosexuality over the other side.

That is a bias by CREED and form of Discrimination that
violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments which the Civil Rights Act extended to public institutions.

Seawytch I understand that people are abusing their religious freedom
to discriminate against progray beliefs that are equal under law;
but it does not correct the problem to discriminate the other way!

Two wrongs do not make this right.

NEITHER side can abuse govt to discriminate against the beliefs of the other.

Both progay and antigay beliefs and creeds are equal under law
because NEITHER is proven scientifically to be natural/unnatural, choice or behavior, born or not,
so they are BOTH FAITH BASED CREEDS.

You are right that neither should these laws be abused
to discriminate against gay beliefs, and that is what the Christians are saying
also that the laws should not be abused to discriminate against their beliefs
that homosexuality is unnatural but a choice they cannot be required by govt to recognize or support
or associate with if it is against their beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

One must be seperate to be equal?

The other not?

I take it civil unions would have been fine with you for gays, right?

You do understand the legal standing that same sex couples were granted, right?

Here, I'll link to it again:Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I wonder when this little melt down will end. In 5 or 10 years, are you still going to be here wasting everyone's time and energy with your inane arguments?

No, in 5 or 10 years I'll simply be saying.......

Told Ya So!

Its been 11 years since Massachusetts legalized same gender marriage.

And yet here you are- still unable to say "Told ya so!".

Pop's meltdown because of his butt hurt that same gender couples can marry continues.

1. The state passing a law on marriage is different from Federal Govt mandating it for all states.
2. Slavery and Segregation were also once endorsed and enforced by laws and courts, too.
Doesn't make it right. People challenged that and changed it. Because it did not represent
the ENTIRE population of the State.
3. Ironically, by your same argument, people have made the opposite argument
a. that the TRADITIONAL interpretation of marriage has been around longer and should remain
b. that the states that passed BANS on gay marriage should also remain because it was "passed by the state"
These institutions will continue to change and evolve until there is a consensus on law.
so some of these issues involving "beliefs" may need to be completely separated out from the state if people can't agree.

What's the difference between states mandating terms of marriage or mandating
terms of funeral arrangements, baptisms and communions, and other religious and spiritual ceremonies?

If we were smart we'd get the state out of marriage, and separate the programs for
funding benefits since obviously people don't agree on the "terms and conditions" to recognize and fund.

The major parties are already organized by constituents by district, state and nationally, so why not use those networks to manage the benefits for followers who AGREE to the policies of their respective parties?

* The Mormons have their own separate 2 year program similar to social security.
* The City of Galveston has its own social security program for its residents.
Why not have the political parties organize and quit fighting over the terms? Just fund their own, similar to how the Catholics and Protestants, Buddhists Christians and Muslims fund their own ceremonies and programs for their members under their OWN terms and don't impose on each other, much less attempt to mandate BELIEFS for the entire nation on how to manage member benefits.

 

[dblack]

So, for haters of gay people, equality = inequality and fairness = unfairness.

"1984", anyone?

It's getting more and more like that all the time.

We're in the midst of a significant, if unrecognized, shift in our style of government. We're abandoning the traditional liberal goal of equal rights for all individuals, and replacing it with the goal of equalizing power via group privilege. The two approaches aren't compatible.

 

[Seawytch]

Not at all. I've never known anyone who was fired from his job because he was fat. I've never known anyone who has been beaten up because he was fat.

I've known people who have been fired from their jobs because they were gay. I've known people who were beaten up because they were gay.

BAKE THE ******* CAKE AND SHUT THE **** UP YOU CHRISTIAN ASSHOLES.

Dear JoeB131

* obesity is a leading cause of bullying in children. what makes you think adults don't discriminate and bully by weight? you think that magically ends after children grow up and become adults? they don't carry on?

* look at modeling, look at professional drill and dance teams.
there are whole campaigns against the fashion industry and photoshopped magazine covers,
with the concern that obsession with body weight encourages eating disorders and phobias that can even kill

Oh wait. That's right.

With obesity in children, people are actually lobbying to change diets and get more exercise to counteract obesity!

But with spiritual healing that has helped people recover from Unwanted homosexual attractions and relations,
this isn't promoted as a natural choice of therapy, but censored and BANNED out of fear of conversion therapy which isn't the same thing.

Big difference.

In one instance, with obesity, people DO recognize when it is an unhealthy condition and needs to change. With homosexuality, the cases of people coming out and saying they changed, this is censored and attacked as lies.

This is why his response was comically weak. Fat people - at the very least because there are more of them - take a lot more abuse than gay people. But the point here isn't that they should be protected from discrimination too. The point is, everyone has their biases, and it's their right. Dictating our thoughts via government is totalitarian oppression. Period.

And they are protected from discrimination in Public Accommodation in some states. Maybe even more than gays are protected in.

ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Act 453 of 1976
AN ACT to define civil rights; to prohibit discriminatory practices, policies, and customs in the exercise of those rights based upon religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status;

Hi Seawytch
Technically, anything to do with Orientation (or gender based on something other than genetic designation at birth)
is FAITH based, NOT proven scientifically, and falls under CREED.

So equally does the belief that homosexuality is unnatural and against
someone's religion fall under CREED.

Two CREEDS are equal under law.

It is against Constitutional Ethics for the Govt to take one CREED over another.
To impose beliefs either "for or against" homosexuality over the other side.

That is a bias by CREED and form of Discrimination that
violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments which the Civil Rights Act extended to public institutions.

Seawytch I understand that people are abusing their religious freedom
to discriminate against progray beliefs that are equal under law;
but it does not correct the problem to discriminate the other way!

Two wrongs do not make this right.

NEITHER side can abuse govt to discriminate against the beliefs of the other.

Both progay and antigay beliefs and creeds are equal under law
because NEITHER is proven scientifically to be natural/unnatural, choice or behavior, born or not,
so they are BOTH FAITH BASED CREEDS.

You are right that neither should these laws be abused
to discriminate against gay beliefs, and that is what the Christians are saying
also that the laws should not be abused to discriminate against their beliefs
that homosexuality is unnatural but a choice they cannot be required by govt to recognize or support
or associate with if it is against their beliefs.

Nobody is discriminating against Christians. It's against the law in all 50 states. Having to follow a state law that protects others in addition to Christians isn't discrimination.

 

[Syriusly]

First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I wonder when this little melt down will end. In 5 or 10 years, are you still going to be here wasting everyone's time and energy with your inane arguments?

No, in 5 or 10 years I'll simply be saying.......

Told Ya So!

Its been 11 years since Massachusetts legalized same gender marriage.

And yet here you are- still unable to say "Told ya so!".

Pop's meltdown because of his butt hurt that same gender couples can marry continues.

If we were smart we'd get the state out of marriage, and separate the programs for
funding benefits since obviously people don't agree on the "terms and conditions" to recognize and fund.
.

Feel free to go for that.

 

[Faun]

WTF is wrong with you? The primary purposes of a locker room is to shower or get changed. Everyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference has access to that. The primary purpose of marriage is to make a life long commitment to the person you love. Homosexuals were denied that right.

Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.

Everyone has access to cake also

The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.

The male has access to "a" shower.

How pleasent the world can be.

In the business offering a locker room, everyone has access to it. In the business offering wedding cakes, only straight people have access to it. Using your analogy, it would be illegal to bar homosexuals from using the locker room.

One must be seperate to be equal?

The other not?

I take it civil unions would have been fine with you for gays, right?

You do understand the legal standing that same sex couples were granted, right?

Here, I'll link to it again:Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I have no problem. I've been saying for years that gays should be allowed to marry; otherwise their equal protection was being violated. The U.S.S.C. decision proved I was right.

As far as differences between a married lesbian and straight male ... their gender.

 

[emilynghiem]

Not at all. I've never known anyone who was fired from his job because he was fat. I've never known anyone who has been beaten up because he was fat.

I've known people who have been fired from their jobs because they were gay. I've known people who were beaten up because they were gay.

BAKE THE ******* CAKE AND SHUT THE **** UP YOU CHRISTIAN ASSHOLES.

Dear JoeB131

* obesity is a leading cause of bullying in children. what makes you think adults don't discriminate and bully by weight? you think that magically ends after children grow up and become adults? they don't carry on?

* look at modeling, look at professional drill and dance teams.
there are whole campaigns against the fashion industry and photoshopped magazine covers,
with the concern that obsession with body weight encourages eating disorders and phobias that can even kill

Oh wait. That's right.

With obesity in children, people are actually lobbying to change diets and get more exercise to counteract obesity!

But with spiritual healing that has helped people recover from Unwanted homosexual attractions and relations,
this isn't promoted as a natural choice of therapy, but censored and BANNED out of fear of conversion therapy which isn't the same thing.

Big difference.

In one instance, with obesity, people DO recognize when it is an unhealthy condition and needs to change. With homosexuality, the cases of people coming out and saying they changed, this is censored and attacked as lies.

This is why his response was comically weak. Fat people - at the very least because there are more of them - take a lot more abuse than gay people. But the point here isn't that they should be protected from discrimination too. The point is, everyone has their biases, and it's their right. Dictating our thoughts via government is totalitarian oppression. Period.

And they are protected from discrimination in Public Accommodation in some states. Maybe even more than gays are protected in.

ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Act 453 of 1976
AN ACT to define civil rights; to prohibit discriminatory practices, policies, and customs in the exercise of those rights based upon religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status;

Hi Seawytch
Technically, anything to do with Orientation (or gender based on something other than genetic designation at birth)
is FAITH based, NOT proven scientifically, and falls under CREED.

So equally does the belief that homosexuality is unnatural and against
someone's religion fall under CREED.

Two CREEDS are equal under law.

It is against Constitutional Ethics for the Govt to take one CREED over another.
To impose beliefs either "for or against" homosexuality over the other side.

That is a bias by CREED and form of Discrimination that
violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments which the Civil Rights Act extended to public institutions.

Seawytch I understand that people are abusing their religious freedom
to discriminate against progray beliefs that are equal under law;
but it does not correct the problem to discriminate the other way!

Two wrongs do not make this right.

NEITHER side can abuse govt to discriminate against the beliefs of the other.

Both progay and antigay beliefs and creeds are equal under law
because NEITHER is proven scientifically to be natural/unnatural, choice or behavior, born or not,
so they are BOTH FAITH BASED CREEDS.

You are right that neither should these laws be abused
to discriminate against gay beliefs, and that is what the Christians are saying
also that the laws should not be abused to discriminate against their beliefs
that homosexuality is unnatural but a choice they cannot be required by govt to recognize or support
or associate with if it is against their beliefs.

Nobody is discriminating against Christians. It's against the law in all 50 states. Having to follow a state law that protects others in addition to Christians isn't discrimination.

^ Not True ^
Christians are forced to fund abortion measures they have been fighting to separate from
the same way anti-death penalty opponents have been fighting not to fund that either!

If YOU were forced to fund faith-based activities you felt were outside of govt jurisdiction,
you'd push to separate that from public policy also if it was as serious to you as
these beliefs are to them. Like gay marriage, even if it is only 3-5% of the population,
people are fighting for that. So the same with Christians and their prolife beliefs
where they don't want public institutions having anything to do with abortion that is against their beliefs.

In the meantime, they fight just as hard as the progay advocates were fighting over marriage beliefs.

If you don't consider prolife to be a belief protected by law,
how are you supposed to push for progay beliefs to be protected?

How is that fair , Seawytch

For one group to push to protect the rights of the unborn they BELIEVE to deserve 'equal protection of the laws'
and one group to push to protect the rights of gays and marriage they BELIEVE should be recognized by law.

If YOU push for YOUR beliefs to be endorsed and implemented by Govt
then it would only be fair for the people with Prolife beliefs to have that endorsed and implemented by Govt.

Otherwise, you would be discriminating by CREED -- only using Govt to endorse and establish YOUR beliefs
about gay marriage but when it comes to beliefs about Prolife and protecting the rights of unborn,
SUDDENLY that is faith based and doesn't belong in Govt.
Well, so are the rights of gays and marriage "faith based" where that is arguably outside Govt jurisdiction, too!

So that's discrimination and it is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act.

If you don't see this bias going on, you are equally part of the
problem you point out with anti-gay bias who only see their beliefs as valid for Govt to endorse
but don't want other people's beliefs pushed through Govt. So you are both discriminating against the beliefs of the others; you are equally willing to push beliefs through Govt as long as they are YOUR beliefs and values.
That is violating the First Amendment to abuse Govt to establish beliefs (unless it by consent of all people so there is no faith-based imposition or exclusion going on).

 

[Seawytch]

Dear JoeB131

* obesity is a leading cause of bullying in children. what makes you think adults don't discriminate and bully by weight? you think that magically ends after children grow up and become adults? they don't carry on?

* look at modeling, look at professional drill and dance teams.
there are whole campaigns against the fashion industry and photoshopped magazine covers,
with the concern that obsession with body weight encourages eating disorders and phobias that can even kill

Oh wait. That's right.

With obesity in children, people are actually lobbying to change diets and get more exercise to counteract obesity!

But with spiritual healing that has helped people recover from Unwanted homosexual attractions and relations,
this isn't promoted as a natural choice of therapy, but censored and BANNED out of fear of conversion therapy which isn't the same thing.

Big difference.

In one instance, with obesity, people DO recognize when it is an unhealthy condition and needs to change. With homosexuality, the cases of people coming out and saying they changed, this is censored and attacked as lies.

This is why his response was comically weak. Fat people - at the very least because there are more of them - take a lot more abuse than gay people. But the point here isn't that they should be protected from discrimination too. The point is, everyone has their biases, and it's their right. Dictating our thoughts via government is totalitarian oppression. Period.

And they are protected from discrimination in Public Accommodation in some states. Maybe even more than gays are protected in.

ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Act 453 of 1976
AN ACT to define civil rights; to prohibit discriminatory practices, policies, and customs in the exercise of those rights based upon religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status;

Hi Seawytch
Technically, anything to do with Orientation (or gender based on something other than genetic designation at birth)
is FAITH based, NOT proven scientifically, and falls under CREED.

So equally does the belief that homosexuality is unnatural and against
someone's religion fall under CREED.

Two CREEDS are equal under law.

It is against Constitutional Ethics for the Govt to take one CREED over another.
To impose beliefs either "for or against" homosexuality over the other side.

That is a bias by CREED and form of Discrimination that
violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments which the Civil Rights Act extended to public institutions.

Seawytch I understand that people are abusing their religious freedom
to discriminate against progray beliefs that are equal under law;
but it does not correct the problem to discriminate the other way!

Two wrongs do not make this right.

NEITHER side can abuse govt to discriminate against the beliefs of the other.

Both progay and antigay beliefs and creeds are equal under law
because NEITHER is proven scientifically to be natural/unnatural, choice or behavior, born or not,
so they are BOTH FAITH BASED CREEDS.

You are right that neither should these laws be abused
to discriminate against gay beliefs, and that is what the Christians are saying
also that the laws should not be abused to discriminate against their beliefs
that homosexuality is unnatural but a choice they cannot be required by govt to recognize or support
or associate with if it is against their beliefs.

Nobody is discriminating against Christians. It's against the law in all 50 states. Having to follow a state law that protects others in addition to Christians isn't discrimination.

^ Not True ^
Christians are forced to fund abortion measures they have been fighting to separate from
the same way anti-death penalty opponents have been fighting not to fund that either!

If YOU were forced to fund faith-based activities you felt were outside of govt jurisdiction,
you'd push to separate that from public policy also if it was as serious to you as
these beliefs are to them. Like gay marriage, even if it is only 3-5% of the population,
people are fighting for that. So the same with Christians and their prolife beliefs
where they don't want public institutions having anything to do with abortion that is against their beliefs.

In the meantime, they fight just as hard as the progay advocates were fighting over marriage beliefs.

If you don't consider prolife to be a belief protected by law,
how are you supposed to push for progay beliefs to be protected?

How is that fair , Seawytch

For one group to push to protect the rights of the unborn they BELIEVE to deserve 'equal protection of the laws'
and one group to push to protect the rights of gays and marriage they BELIEVE should be recognized by law.

If YOU push for YOUR beliefs to be endorsed and implemented by Govt
then it would only be fair for the people with Prolife beliefs to have that endorsed and implemented by Govt.

Otherwise, you would be discriminating by CREED -- only using Govt to endorse and establish YOUR beliefs
about gay marriage but when it comes to beliefs about Prolife and protecting the rights of unborn,
SUDDENLY that is faith based and doesn't belong in Govt.
Well, so are the rights of gays and marriage "faith based" where that is arguably outside Govt jurisdiction, too!

So that's discrimination and it is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act.

If you don't see this bias going on, you are equally part of the
problem you point out with anti-gay bias who only see their beliefs as valid for Govt to endorse
but don't want other people's beliefs pushed through Govt. So you are both discriminating against the beliefs of the others; you are equally willing to push beliefs through Govt as long as they are YOUR beliefs and values.
That is violating the First Amendment to abuse Govt to establish beliefs (unless it by consent of all people so there is no faith-based imposition or exclusion going on).

In a word, no.

Christians are not being discriminated against by having to obey laws.

 

[Pop23]

They are accommodated equally. Remember, no court, no state, no legal authority has ever found that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws. Rendering your assertion more hapless nonsense that has no reflection in reality.

Predicting nothing, nor having the slightest relevance to any law. With your record of failure remaining perfect.

I mean, the law of averages alone would mandate that eventually you'd get something right. Yet you somehow always find a way to be wrong every single time. With your predictions and legal interpretations of everything from incest to poly marriage to gendered bathrooms demonstrated to be pseudo-legal gibberish by history.

Says who? Remembering of course that you citing yourself is meaningless babble.

Are you now saying that gender really does matter?

You cannot claim similarity when it suits you, then claim you are not when it suits your fancy.

The lesbian is allowed in the locker room with the wife, who the lesbian is sexually attracted to, but the husband (who the lesbian claims she is similar to) is not?

Why? Some kind of MORALITY play?

Hmmmmmm, sounds kinda familiar?

WTF is wrong with you? The primary purposes of a locker room is to shower or get changed. Everyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference has access to that. The primary purpose of marriage is to make a life long commitment to the person you love. Homosexuals were denied that right.

Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.

Everyone has access to cake also

The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.

A bathroom isn't public business. Rendering your argument laughably pseudo-legal gibberish. As PA laws apply only to business. And what service is someone denied by gendered bathrooms? Nothing.

Remember, no court, no state, no legal authority has ever found that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws. Rendering your assertion more hapless nonsense that has no reflection in reality.

Predicting nothing, nor having the slightest relevance to any law. With your record of failure remaining perfect.

I mean, the law of averages alone would mandate that eventually you'd get something right. Yet you somehow always find a way to be wrong every single time. With your predictions and legal interpretations of everything from incest to poly marriage to gendered bathrooms demonstrated to be meaningless babble by history.

The USSC, just recently made it FEDERALLY recognized that same sex and opposite sex couples were similarily situated, which by the way makes it plain that these couples MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY.

Pop's meltdown continues.

Since admission to a locker room is for individuals- not couples- this is just another of your straw men.

Lol, who do you think I'm talking about?

You are too much

 

[Pop23]

First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I wonder when this little melt down will end. In 5 or 10 years, are you still going to be here wasting everyone's time and energy with your inane arguments?

No, in 5 or 10 years I'll simply be saying.......

Told Ya So!

Its been 11 years since Massachusetts legalized same gender marriage.

And yet here you are- still unable to say "Told ya so!".

Pop's meltdown because of his butt hurt that same gender couples can marry continues.

Just goes to show how insecure some people are.

Yes you are

 

[Pop23]

Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.

Everyone has access to cake also

The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.

The male has access to "a" shower.

How pleasent the world can be.

In the business offering a locker room, everyone has access to it. In the business offering wedding cakes, only straight people have access to it. Using your analogy, it would be illegal to bar homosexuals from using the locker room.

One must be seperate to be equal?

The other not?

I take it civil unions would have been fine with you for gays, right?

You do understand the legal standing that same sex couples were granted, right?

Here, I'll link to it again:Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I have no problem. I've been saying for years that gays should be allowed to marry; otherwise their equal protection was being violated. The U.S.S.C. decision proved I was right.

As far as differences between a married lesbian and straight male ... their gender.

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

 

[Syriusly]

In the business offering a locker room, everyone has access to it. In the business offering wedding cakes, only straight people have access to it. Using your analogy, it would be illegal to bar homosexuals from using the locker room.

One must be seperate to be equal?

The other not?

I take it civil unions would have been fine with you for gays, right?

You do understand the legal standing that same sex couples were granted, right?

Here, I'll link to it again:Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I have no problem. I've been saying for years that gays should be allowed to marry; otherwise their equal protection was being violated. The U.S.S.C. decision proved I was right.

As far as differences between a married lesbian and straight male ... their gender.

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.

 

[Vandalshandle]

One must be seperate to be equal?

The other not?

I take it civil unions would have been fine with you for gays, right?

You do understand the legal standing that same sex couples were granted, right?

Here, I'll link to it again:Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I have no problem. I've been saying for years that gays should be allowed to marry; otherwise their equal protection was being violated. The U.S.S.C. decision proved I was right.

As far as differences between a married lesbian and straight male ... their gender.

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.

 

[Pop23]

One must be seperate to be equal?

The other not?

I take it civil unions would have been fine with you for gays, right?

You do understand the legal standing that same sex couples were granted, right?

Here, I'll link to it again:Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I have no problem. I've been saying for years that gays should be allowed to marry; otherwise their equal protection was being violated. The U.S.S.C. decision proved I was right.

As far as differences between a married lesbian and straight male ... their gender.

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.

And Syriously's nervous breakdown over the ramifications of his genderless society actually looks like continues.

Oh, all these arguments were first yours.....

Compelling state interest

Similarily Situated

And you are really this unprepared?

Now that's funny!

 

[Pop23]

First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I have no problem. I've been saying for years that gays should be allowed to marry; otherwise their equal protection was being violated. The U.S.S.C. decision proved I was right.

As far as differences between a married lesbian and straight male ... their gender.

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.

Pink bunnies!!!!!!

Your high school mascot?