Why does it matter if Homosexuality is a choice or not?

[jknowgood]

So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?

Where do you inject "he thought of them as friends" from? The Bowman-Cryers had brought a weeding cake for Cheryl McPherson two years previously. Just buying a product years ago counts as "being friends" now?


>>>>

I read in an article that the bakers said they would come in and buy pastries. And that they knew his religious stance, so he was shocked they asked. I could understand if there wasn't anymore bakeries, but there are and the queer couple were assholes for doing it in the first place. In a civil society you would say okay and go to a different bakery, queers aren't civil. It's all about the agenda. Well I say mind your own business, and **** off.

 

[jknowgood]

So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?

ETA: I wrote this with Jack Phillips in mind, forgive me if I'm speaking about a different incident than that which you are referencing.

1) If he sold to them on a regular basis, why the discrimination in the first place?

2) As far as I've seen, he's not losing his business. He's choosing not to make wedding cakes any longer.

Do you not understand that it is illegal for a public entity to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation? Illegal. That's Colorado state law and if he had a problem operating his business while abiding by the law then he probably shouldn't have opened in the first place.

Either way, he's making a choice to stop doing wedding cakes. A CHOICE. No one is forcing him to stop, he's doing that all on his own.

And, for the record, the Mullins couple was married in Massachusetts, he was not participating in ANY wedding. They wanted a cake for a reception back in Colorado after the fact. He discriminated against two people and now he is complaining about facing those consequences.

So then you are okay with a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and makes him do confederate flag cakes?

So you're okay with non sequiturs? Nobody has to provide a service they would not otherwise provide.

You sell a WEDDING CAKE to couple A, you must also sell a WEDDING CAKE to coupleB even if couple B is black, Muslim or in some places, gay.

I think if it's not a life threatening thing, anyone can deny anyone service. Only in liberal looney land would you give someone money that doesn't want to do business with you.

 

[jknowgood]

So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?

ETA: I wrote this with Jack Phillips in mind, forgive me if I'm speaking about a different incident than that which you are referencing.

1) If he sold to them on a regular basis, why the discrimination in the first place?

2) As far as I've seen, he's not losing his business. He's choosing not to make wedding cakes any longer.

Do you not understand that it is illegal for a public entity to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation? Illegal. That's Colorado state law and if he had a problem operating his business while abiding by the law then he probably shouldn't have opened in the first place.

Either way, he's making a choice to stop doing wedding cakes. A CHOICE. No one is forcing him to stop, he's doing that all on his own.

And, for the record, the Mullins couple was married in Massachusetts, he was not participating in ANY wedding. They wanted a cake for a reception back in Colorado after the fact. He discriminated against two people and now he is complaining about facing those consequences.

So then you are okay with a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and makes him do confederate flag cakes?

So you're okay with non sequiturs? Nobody has to provide a service they would not otherwise provide.

You sell a WEDDING CAKE to couple A, you must also sell a WEDDING CAKE to coupleB even if couple B is black, Muslim or in some places, gay.

I think a person should have the right to deny anyone service for any reason. I noticed we haven't heard anything about the muslim baker telling the queers to go down the road. Wonder why?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?

ETA: I wrote this with Jack Phillips in mind, forgive me if I'm speaking about a different incident than that which you are referencing.

1) If he sold to them on a regular basis, why the discrimination in the first place?

2) As far as I've seen, he's not losing his business. He's choosing not to make wedding cakes any longer.

Do you not understand that it is illegal for a public entity to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation? Illegal. That's Colorado state law and if he had a problem operating his business while abiding by the law then he probably shouldn't have opened in the first place.

Either way, he's making a choice to stop doing wedding cakes. A CHOICE. No one is forcing him to stop, he's doing that all on his own.

And, for the record, the Mullins couple was married in Massachusetts, he was not participating in ANY wedding. They wanted a cake for a reception back in Colorado after the fact. He discriminated against two people and now he is complaining about facing those consequences.

So then you are okay with a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and makes him do confederate flag cakes?

So you're okay with non sequiturs? Nobody has to provide a service they would not otherwise provide.

You sell a WEDDING CAKE to couple A, you must also sell a WEDDING CAKE to coupleB even if couple B is black, Muslim or in some places, gay.

I think a person should have the right to deny anyone service for any reason. I noticed we haven't heard anything about the muslim baker telling the queers to go down the road. Wonder why?

Probably because he's just as ******* wrong as you are. Baking cakes for cash is not serving God. Obey the law and bake the stupid ******* cake.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?

ETA: I wrote this with Jack Phillips in mind, forgive me if I'm speaking about a different incident than that which you are referencing.

1) If he sold to them on a regular basis, why the discrimination in the first place?

2) As far as I've seen, he's not losing his business. He's choosing not to make wedding cakes any longer.

Do you not understand that it is illegal for a public entity to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation? Illegal. That's Colorado state law and if he had a problem operating his business while abiding by the law then he probably shouldn't have opened in the first place.

Either way, he's making a choice to stop doing wedding cakes. A CHOICE. No one is forcing him to stop, he's doing that all on his own.

And, for the record, the Mullins couple was married in Massachusetts, he was not participating in ANY wedding. They wanted a cake for a reception back in Colorado after the fact. He discriminated against two people and now he is complaining about facing those consequences.

So then you are okay with a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and makes him do confederate flag cakes?

So you're okay with non sequiturs? Nobody has to provide a service they would not otherwise provide.

You sell a WEDDING CAKE to couple A, you must also sell a WEDDING CAKE to coupleB even if couple B is black, Muslim or in some places, gay.

I think if it's not a life threatening thing, anyone can deny anyone service. Only in liberal looney land would you give someone money that doesn't want to do business with you.

Well what you think isn't the law, so change your thinking or you're just being a whiny infant.

 

[kaz]

Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either. They had exactly the same rights as everyone else. Now they have more, the courts decreed it

Before the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob had a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan did not have the right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan did not have the same right.

After the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan can both Civilly Marry Jane**
  
• Bob and Joan have the same rights, not more.

(**individually of course, not together)


>>>>

Making life fair isn't a power of the courts. Being gay didn't change who you could marry, the job of the courts was over at that point and it became the job of the legislature

 

[kaz]

Well thank you for your opinion- which is not anything similar to a fact.

The fact is that we don't know why persons are sexually oriented to the same gender- epigenetics seems to be the most likely answer right now- but its just a promising theory.

I have not seen any evidence at all that homosexuality is a 'learned behavior'

And back to the original question- why does it matter?

Just treat people like people.

The EVIDENCE is history!
If homosexuality was entirely genetics based there would be no human reproduction right????
I mean seriously how would mankind reproduce if we were ALL GENETICALLY predisposed to same sex?
NOW there are those that are genetically predisposed. I've NEVER NEVER said there weren't!
I'm saying that the gay population has increased simply because it is not considered rape to get a blow job from another guy! Simple as that!
Lot easier.

Why would it being genetic mean everyone is the same? We don't all have the same color hair

No shit Sherlock but is there anywhere the law treats you differently because of the color of your hair?

Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either. They had exactly the same rights as everyone else. Now they have more, the courts decreed it

So a ban on redheads marrying each other would be constitutional since the could still marry brunettes?

Didn't think that through did you?

No, you didn't think that one through, it has nothing to do with my gay argument. Being red head would in your example change who you could marry. Unlike being gay which didn't

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either. They had exactly the same rights as everyone else. Now they have more, the courts decreed it

Before the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob had a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan did not have the right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan did not have the same right.

After the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan can both Civilly Marry Jane**
  
• Bob and Joan have the same rights, not more.

(**individually of course, not together)


>>>>

Making life fair isn't a power of the courts. Being gay didn't change who you could marry, the job of the courts was over at that point and it became the job of the legislature

The courts make people equal before the state and the laws the state passes. This isn't new.

 

[jknowgood]

So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?

ETA: I wrote this with Jack Phillips in mind, forgive me if I'm speaking about a different incident than that which you are referencing.

1) If he sold to them on a regular basis, why the discrimination in the first place?

2) As far as I've seen, he's not losing his business. He's choosing not to make wedding cakes any longer.

Do you not understand that it is illegal for a public entity to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation? Illegal. That's Colorado state law and if he had a problem operating his business while abiding by the law then he probably shouldn't have opened in the first place.

Either way, he's making a choice to stop doing wedding cakes. A CHOICE. No one is forcing him to stop, he's doing that all on his own.

And, for the record, the Mullins couple was married in Massachusetts, he was not participating in ANY wedding. They wanted a cake for a reception back in Colorado after the fact. He discriminated against two people and now he is complaining about facing those consequences.

So then you are okay with a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and makes him do confederate flag cakes?

That is a ridiculous argument.

First, I've never met a white supremacist willing to patronize the business of anyone other than other whites.

Second, the refusal wouldn't be considered discrimination based on any of the protected categories. Try again.

Okay using your same logic why would a queer go into a christian bakery and demand him bake them a cake?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Why does it matter if Homosexuality is a choice or not?"

It doesn't.

However, for those hostile to gays, if homosexuality is a choice, then bigots can 'argue' that laws disadvantaging gay Americans are 'justified.'

Of course, the Constitution affords citizens the protected liberty of choice, where it's legally and Constitutionally irrelevant as to whether homosexuality manifests as a choice or a consequence of birth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In a free country it shouldn't matter...but it seems to matter to the haters.

For the record, I never chose.

In a free country you should have the choice not to cater to a wedding without worrying about having your business shut down or threatened with violence.

You queers are the real haters.

Oregon bakery shuts down after gay rights attacks Deseret News National

Indiana pizza shop won t cater gay wedding gets over 50K from supporters - The Washington Post

Gay Group Demands Christian Churches Be SHUT DOWN for Opposing Same-Sex Marriage Top Right News

Given your bigotry and unwarranted animosity to toward gay Americans, you're in no position to accuse anyone of 'hate.'

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either. They had exactly the same rights as everyone else. Now they have more, the courts decreed it

Before the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob had a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan did not have the right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan did not have the same right.

After the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan can both Civilly Marry Jane**
  
• Bob and Joan have the same rights, not more.

(**individually of course, not together)


>>>>

Bob and Joan had the same rights in the first one too, Bob did not have a right to marry joe, joan did.
you forgot that one.
and if you say she did not have the same right because she did not want to marry joe, then is she denying joe his right to marry her, or is Mary Jane denying joan her rights if she did not want to marry her

 

[Syriusly]

Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either. They had exactly the same rights as everyone else. Now they have more, the courts decreed it

Before the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob had a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan did not have the right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan did not have the same right.

After the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan can both Civilly Marry Jane**
  
• Bob and Joan have the same rights, not more.

(**individually of course, not together)


>>>>

Making life fair isn't a power of the courts. Being gay didn't change who you could marry, the job of the courts was over at that point and it became the job of the legislature

Making laws equal before the law though are the job of the court.

And the courts ruled- consistently that laws which prevented a person from marrying someone of the same gender, while allowing a person to marry someone of another gender- were not equal under the law.

Nothing about fair- just like you wanting for gays to pay for your marriage, but don't want to pay for a gay couple marriage is not about fair- just about you having yours and wanting to deny them theirs.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?

Where do you inject "he thought of them as friends" from? The Bowman-Cryers had brought a weeding cake for Cheryl McPherson two years previously. Just buying a product years ago counts as "being friends" now?


>>>>

I read in an article that the bakers said they would come in and buy pastries. And that they knew his religious stance, so he was shocked they asked. I could understand if there wasn't anymore bakeries, but there are and the queer couple were assholes for doing it in the first place. In a civil society you would say okay and go to a different bakery, queers aren't civil. It's all about the agenda. Well I say mind your own business, and **** off.

In a civil society we wouldn't have you and other hateful bigots seeking to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are.

 

[idb]

So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?

ETA: I wrote this with Jack Phillips in mind, forgive me if I'm speaking about a different incident than that which you are referencing.

1) If he sold to them on a regular basis, why the discrimination in the first place?

2) As far as I've seen, he's not losing his business. He's choosing not to make wedding cakes any longer.

Do you not understand that it is illegal for a public entity to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation? Illegal. That's Colorado state law and if he had a problem operating his business while abiding by the law then he probably shouldn't have opened in the first place.

Either way, he's making a choice to stop doing wedding cakes. A CHOICE. No one is forcing him to stop, he's doing that all on his own.

And, for the record, the Mullins couple was married in Massachusetts, he was not participating in ANY wedding. They wanted a cake for a reception back in Colorado after the fact. He discriminated against two people and now he is complaining about facing those consequences.

So then you are okay with a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and makes him do confederate flag cakes?

That is a ridiculous argument.

First, I've never met a white supremacist willing to patronize the business of anyone other than other whites.

Second, the refusal wouldn't be considered discrimination based on any of the protected categories. Try again.

Okay using your same logic why would a queer go into a christian bakery and demand him bake them a cake?

Because he wants a cake?

 

[jknowgood]

So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?

Where do you inject "he thought of them as friends" from? The Bowman-Cryers had brought a weeding cake for Cheryl McPherson two years previously. Just buying a product years ago counts as "being friends" now?


>>>>

I read in an article that the bakers said they would come in and buy pastries. And that they knew his religious stance, so he was shocked they asked. I could understand if there wasn't anymore bakeries, but there are and the queer couple were assholes for doing it in the first place. In a civil society you would say okay and go to a different bakery, queers aren't civil. It's all about the agenda. Well I say mind your own business, and **** off.

In a civil society we wouldn't have you and other hateful bigots seeking to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are.

I don't agree with queers, but they have the right to be happy. I've personally never done anything against a queer. I was actually for civil unions when this subject came up years ago. If they want a document saying they are life long partners. Then I'm all for it, and in that context I don't think the baker would've had a problem baking the cake. Marriage was defined to be between a male and female united by God. So maybe if they would've accepted civil unions we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[jknowgood]

So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?

ETA: I wrote this with Jack Phillips in mind, forgive me if I'm speaking about a different incident than that which you are referencing.

1) If he sold to them on a regular basis, why the discrimination in the first place?

2) As far as I've seen, he's not losing his business. He's choosing not to make wedding cakes any longer.

Do you not understand that it is illegal for a public entity to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation? Illegal. That's Colorado state law and if he had a problem operating his business while abiding by the law then he probably shouldn't have opened in the first place.

Either way, he's making a choice to stop doing wedding cakes. A CHOICE. No one is forcing him to stop, he's doing that all on his own.

And, for the record, the Mullins couple was married in Massachusetts, he was not participating in ANY wedding. They wanted a cake for a reception back in Colorado after the fact. He discriminated against two people and now he is complaining about facing those consequences.

So then you are okay with a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and makes him do confederate flag cakes?

That is a ridiculous argument.

First, I've never met a white supremacist willing to patronize the business of anyone other than other whites.

Second, the refusal wouldn't be considered discrimination based on any of the protected categories. Try again.

Okay using your same logic why would a queer go into a christian bakery and demand him bake them a cake?

Because he wants a cake?

So would the white supremacists.

 

[MsnBama]

Because he wants a cake?

A cake baked by a Christian and eaten by a homosexual tastes different apparently.

I'm not really in the habit of demanding the businesses I use most frequently share their religious and/or political beliefs with me, I suppose he believes they should have asked and never used the baker.

He has no argument, he's just throwing everything against the wall and hoping something eventually sticks.

 

[idb]

ETA: I wrote this with Jack Phillips in mind, forgive me if I'm speaking about a different incident than that which you are referencing.

1) If he sold to them on a regular basis, why the discrimination in the first place?

2) As far as I've seen, he's not losing his business. He's choosing not to make wedding cakes any longer.

Do you not understand that it is illegal for a public entity to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation? Illegal. That's Colorado state law and if he had a problem operating his business while abiding by the law then he probably shouldn't have opened in the first place.

Either way, he's making a choice to stop doing wedding cakes. A CHOICE. No one is forcing him to stop, he's doing that all on his own.

And, for the record, the Mullins couple was married in Massachusetts, he was not participating in ANY wedding. They wanted a cake for a reception back in Colorado after the fact. He discriminated against two people and now he is complaining about facing those consequences.

So then you are okay with a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and makes him do confederate flag cakes?

That is a ridiculous argument.

First, I've never met a white supremacist willing to patronize the business of anyone other than other whites.

Second, the refusal wouldn't be considered discrimination based on any of the protected categories. Try again.

Okay using your same logic why would a queer go into a christian bakery and demand him bake them a cake?

Because he wants a cake?

So would the white supremacists.

Sure.
I'm certain you're about to make a point any moment now.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I read in an article that the bakers said they would come in and buy pastries.

Wrong baker.

Try reading the uncontested statement of facts in the case instead of "some article".

They had made a purchase before. A couple of years earlier they (the bakers) had supplied the wedding cake for one of the couples mother. Nowhere does it say they were regular customers or that they were considered "friends".

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf


>>>>[/QUOTE]