Gay wedding cakes and the bigots who won't bake them.

[Winter Woman]

I guess all those sit-ins where other people demanded food from people who didn't like them must have just been about money too.

sit-ins? What are you talking about?

Edit: I should inform you I just jumped in and I'm not going to read 56 pages of text. So if it was mentioned in this thread I have no knowledge of what you are speaking of.

 

[Winter Woman]

i think it's more about gay people wanting access to the same set of goods and services that the rest of us get to take for granted.

how would you feel if you were barred from a series of establishments because you were white, and the racist business owners' ability to do so was legally protected and codified into law?

Pretty much everything lately is all about money. I don't believe serving them would affect whether the bakers go to heaven. It isn't their 'sin' but someone else's as it were.

In the past I have been told by a Muslim man that he wouldn't pay our company unless he could pay his debt directly to a man. My husband made him place the money directly on the palm of my hand or we would remove our product. We then quit .

Edit: I don't believe being gay/lesb stops someone from God.

Edit: Do you think the Muslim man was infringing my rights?

 

[GOD HERE]

And why then, has not the almighty God smitten these allegedly bogus assertions with flawless, insurmountable logic.
You should be able to easily render his points into the realm of inconsequential nonsense.
Oh, hmmm, methinks it is because you are entirely incapable of doing so.
I have a hunch that you are a false God, you obviously are totally devoid of omniscience.

I'm sorry, I don't see any actual content in your post.

 

[Wavels]

I'm sorry, I don't see any actual content in your post.

Of course not, because you are demonstrably not omniscient.
In fact you are decidedly deficient in intellectual candle power.

Sorry about that, being agnostic, your handle sets me off, you are probably a great guy to sit down with and fire up a bowl or two or three.
You are just wrong.

 

[Red1966]

who in their right mind would want to eat something made by a person that detests them? I wouldn't. Must be about money.

This gives me an idea for a solution that satisfy everyone. Force bakers to bake "gay" cakes. If the baker should "accidentally" spit in the cake, oh well.

 

[Padawanbater2]

This gives me an idea for a solution that satisfy everyone. Force bakers to bake "gay" cakes. If the baker should "accidentally" spit in the cake, oh well.

That's a terrible idea, they'd just go out of business quicker than if they refused service

 

[Wavels]

Ewww, I do not know which is worse, Red's horrible sociopathic idea, or the fact that I have to agree with a Pada post.

Red's post is, at best, unsettling and vomit inducing, so Pada's post is preferable by a country mile...and I agree with him...

Eewwwwww!

 

[BigNBushy]

Is heterosexuality mentioned in the constitution? Is it stated that it's protected, or is it assumed?

Heterosexuality is the null hypothesis. In other words, it's the norm, it is assumed, and it is the morally superior orientation. All moral codes that have ever existed make this determination. Furthermore, heterosexuality is in the interest of the state. Heterosexual relationships are better for the economy, and produce the next generation of citizens.

Homosexuals spend very little money on children, resulting in greater accumulations of wealth. Accumulations of wealth are good for the person, not good for the economy. Economy is money in motion. Most heterosexuals largest expense is their children, on local services such as child care.

Populations need a 2.1 birth rate for population maintenance, a higher rate for growth. Homosexuals do nothing to this. Adoption by homosexual couples could be an answer to the first point, but not this one.

Heterosexuality is the norm, and most beneficial to society.

Homosexuals should be free to be what they are, that is not in dispute, but their benefits to society are far less. And don't give me any bullshit about the arts.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Ewww, I do not know which is worse, Red's horrible sociopathic idea, or the fact that I have to agree with a Pada post.

Red's post is, at best, unsettling and vomit inducing, so Pada's post is preferable by a country mile...and I agree with him...

Eewwwwww!

 

[Padawanbater2]

Heterosexuality is the null hypothesis. In other words, it's the norm, it is assumed, and it is the morally superior orientation. All moral codes that have ever existed make this determination. Furthermore, heterosexuality is in the interest of the state. Heterosexual relationships are better for the economy, and produce the next generation of citizens.

Homosexuals spend very little money on children, resulting in greater accumulations of wealth. Accumulations of wealth are good for the person, not good for the economy. Economy is money in motion. Most heterosexuals largest expense is their children, on local services such as child care.

Populations need a 2.1 birth rate for population maintenance, a higher rate for growth. Homosexuals do nothing to this. Adoption by homosexual couples could be an answer to the first point, but not this one.

Heterosexuality is the norm, and most beneficial to society.

Homosexuals should be free to be what they are, that is not in dispute, but their benefits to society are far less. And don't give me any bullshit about the arts.

See, there's where you go wrong. Morality has no bearing on sexual orientation. There is no right or wrong to being gay or straight. Just like there's no right or wrong to being black or white.

Heterosexuality is in the interest of the state? Who says? I'd argue that a gay couple would be more productive than a straight couple, as the gay couple aren't worrying about having/raising kids. Again though, moot point, you have no evidence to support this

Produce the next generation of citizens? Let them adopt, problem solved

It seems inconsistent to say that accumulation of wealth is good for the person not the economy when arguing against gay rights but when the subject is switched to the free market and economic inequality, the accumulation of wealth is your God given right... hmm.. Also, I spend very little money on children, as a single guy, are you going to argue that I shouldn't have the same rights as more economically friendly, child supporting straight couples, and use my lack of funds towards kids as a justification, too?

There is no such thing as "the norm" when it comes to sexual orientation, as supported by the multitudes of variables of sexuality people are into, 3 somes, 4 somes, DP, swingers, polygamists, gay couples, people who like transexuals, people who like midgets, and on and on and on into infinity. If you think human sexuality comes with a "normal" stamped to it, you haven't fucked enough

You're in no position to determine who is of how much value to anything except yourself

 

[BigNBushy]

See, there's where you go wrong. Morality has no bearing on sexual orientation. There is no right or wrong to being gay or straight. Just like there's no right or wrong to being black or white.

Heterosexuality is in the interest of the state? Who says? I'd argue that a gay couple would be more productive than a straight couple, as the gay couple aren't worrying about having/raising kids. Again though, moot point, you have no evidence to support this

Produce the next generation of citizens? Let them adopt, problem solved

It seems inconsistent to say that accumulation of wealth is good for the person not the economy when arguing against gay rights but when the subject is switched to the free market and economic inequality, the accumulation of wealth is your God given right... hmm.. Also, I spend very little money on children, as a single guy, are you going to argue that I shouldn't have the same rights as more economically friendly, child supporting straight couples, and use my lack of funds towards kids as a justification, too?

There is no such thing as "the norm" when it comes to sexual orientation, as supported by the multitudes of variables of sexuality people are into, 3 somes, 4 somes, DP, swingers, polygamists, gay couples, people who like transexuals, people who like midgets, and on and on and on into infinity. If you think human sexuality comes with a "normal" stamped to it, you haven't fucked enough

You're in no position to determine who is of how much value to anything except yourself

There needs to be a distinction between inflicting a harm, and not being granted a benefit.

For example, married folks get a tax break. I'm not married. This isn't a penalty for being single, there is just a reward for being married. Marriage produces children and other beneficial things to society, thus it is rewarded.

Same for owning a home, mortgage interest deduction. Most other kinds of interest are not deductible. This isn't a penalty for renters, it's a benefit to owners.

I'm all for removing all penalties for homosexuality, descrimination and the like. I just don't see any need to add any benefits to it, as it produces none of the benefits heterosexual coupling produces.

As to the morality, well I certainly don't think homosexuality raises to the same immorality as fraud or other forms of immorality, there is no harm being done. But neither you nor I get to decide what is moral and what isn't. Societies across time have, and almost universally homosexuality is considered outside of normal morals.

I do get the sense that this may be changing, and when it does that is fine, society decides these things, not individuals. It's like the distinction between climate and weather in the global warming debate. My and your opinions are like weather. Enough of the same, over time will lead to climate. But for now, the vast pool of opinions are that homosexuality is amoral. But as I said this mah be changing. I heard recently that US opinion on same sex marriage has shifted greatly recently, up to 54% I think approval. Perhaps the climate is chaining for homosexual morality, but it isn't there yet.

 

[fr3d12]

There needs to be a distinction between inflicting a harm, and not being granted a benefit.

For example, married folks get a tax break. I'm not married. This isn't a penalty for being single, there is just a reward for being married. Marriage produces children and other beneficial things to society, thus it is rewarded.

Same for owning a home, mortgage interest deduction. Most other kinds of interest are not deductible. This isn't a penalty for renters, it's a benefit to owners.

I'm all for removing all penalties for homosexuality, descrimination and the like. I just don't see any need to add any benefits to it, as it produces none of the benefits heterosexual coupling produces.

As to the morality, well I certainly don't think homosexuality raises to the same immorality as fraud or other forms of immorality, there is no harm being done. But neither you nor I get to decide what is moral and what isn't. Societies across time have, and almost universally homosexuality is considered outside of normal morals.

I do get the sense that this may be changing, and when it does that is fine, society decides these things, not individuals. It's like the distinction between climate and weather in the global warming debate. My and your opinions are like weather. Enough of the same, over time will lead to climate. But for now, the vast pool of opinions are that homosexuality is amoral. But as I said this mah be changing. I heard recently that US opinion on same sex marriage has shifted greatly recently, up to 54% I think approval. Perhaps the climate is chaining for homosexual morality, but it isn't there yet.

Society now has more morals than ever before, who are these societies across time you refer to?
We're a long way from where we should be but at least it's illegal in most countries to marry off a 12 year old child to an old man which incidentally was common practice up to not so long ago or do you refer to the morals of the men who must have been off their heads on something when they wrote the greatest work of fiction and bullshit(Bible) known to man?
I'm curious as to the morals you refer to.

 

[UncleBuck]

sit-ins? What are you talking about?

Edit: I should inform you I just jumped in and I'm not going to read 56 pages of text. So if it was mentioned in this thread I have no knowledge of what you are speaking of.

he's talking about civil rights, how stupid are you?

 

[UncleBuck]

This gives me an idea for a solution that satisfy everyone. Force bakers to bake "gay" cakes. If the baker should "accidentally" spit in the cake, oh well.

wow, talk about a bigoted and homophobic asshole. red steps up and claims the prize.

why should someone be allowed to commit a felony just for having to comply with basic civil rights?

 

[UncleBuck]

Ewww, I do not know which is worse, Red's horrible sociopathic idea, or the fact that I have to agree with a Pada post.

Red's post is, at best, unsettling and vomit inducing, so Pada's post is preferable by a country mile...and I agree with him...

Eewwwwww!

yet no one said a thing when ginwilly made a similar point about being FORCED by government to serve black people.

and ginwilly still wonders why i consider him to be racist.

 

[UncleBuck]

Heterosexuality is...the morally superior orientation.

folks, he's not only a white supremacist, but a hetero-supremacist.

didn't even know such a thing really existed.

 

[UncleBuck]

I just don't see any need to add any benefits to it, as it produces none of the benefits heterosexual coupling produces.

are you so stupid that you don't know that it is possible for gays to have their own children?

one partner gives their sperm/egg, and the other partner has someone in their family provide the egg/sperm.

it is biologically and gentically every bit their child.

i'll be waiting for you to start a petition to strip marriage rights form infertile couples, ya fucking bigot.

 

[Winter Woman]

he's talking about civil rights, how stupid are you?

There were sit-ins for many things in my youth. I'm sure there are people here old enough to know what I mean. Not everything was civil rights back then.

I see you haven't lost your abusive nature. I still want my rep back.

 

[Padawanbater2]

There needs to be a distinction between inflicting a harm, and not being granted a benefit.

For example, married folks get a tax break. I'm not married. This isn't a penalty for being single, there is just a reward for being married. Marriage produces children and other beneficial things to society, thus it is rewarded.

Same for owning a home, mortgage interest deduction. Most other kinds of interest are not deductible. This isn't a penalty for renters, it's a benefit to owners.

I'm all for removing all penalties for homosexuality, descrimination and the like. I just don't see any need to add any benefits to it, as it produces none of the benefits heterosexual coupling produces.

So the benefits awarded to heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are, but more importantly should be, based on that couples perceived benefit to society when they get married?

So what about a heterosexual couple that doesn't have any kids? Should they be awarded the same benefits as a heterosexual couple that does?

As to the morality, well I certainly don't think homosexuality raises to the same immorality as fraud or other forms of immorality, there is no harm being done.

Then how is homosexuality immoral?

But neither you nor I get to decide what is moral and what isn't. Societies across time have, and almost universally homosexuality is considered outside of normal morals.

"Almost universally" wedding a child up until the 20th century was considered "normal", too. In some places TODAY it still is. Are we to let society judge what is moral and immoral in that instance? If not there then why here? Society has said it's "moral" for thousands of years..

I do get the sense that this may be changing, and when it does that is fine, society decides these things, not individuals. It's like the distinction between climate and weather in the global warming debate. My and your opinions are like weather. Enough of the same, over time will lead to climate. But for now, the vast pool of opinions are that homosexuality is amoral. But as I said this mah be changing. I heard recently that US opinion on same sex marriage has shifted greatly recently, up to 54% I think approval. Perhaps the climate is chaining for homosexual morality, but it isn't there yet.

Rights don't change with time. Rights are rights specifically because they do not change. Imo, you're opinion that rights are subject to change with age and the society in which they exist is simply wrong

 

[Wavels]

yet no one said a thing when ginwilly made a similar point about being FORCED by government to serve black people.

and ginwilly still wonders why i consider him to be racist.

I did not read that post, and if your portrayal is accurate, I would label him a sociopathic cretin, and would grudgingly be forced to be in total agreement with you.
As painful as I may find this to be. Right is right.