Gay Marriage, Forced on Everyone???

That's not something anyone's discussed taking away from anybody.

Hey, it's a slippery slope.

Gay marriage is the issue that galvanized white middle-class gays in America into suddenly giving a shit and having a social conscience. National gay organizations sunk their resources into fighting for gay marriage, at the expense of addressing violence against gays, the disproportionate impoverishment of gays who are outliers on the gender expression spectrum, employment issues, and even AIDS, which had by then moved from white gay men to people of color. The whole phenomenon of gay marriage is a vomit-inducing imitation of the very worst of heterosexual culture—the frenzy to out-commercialize one's peers in the public expression of romantic commitment.

And yet, it just doesn't seem fair, not to be able to marry someone because their junk matches your own.

I'd eat there if you'd do that.

Then on what basis is it acceptable to refuse to bake a cake for the WBC people, because said cake represents their religious beliefs? It's not like they're going to commit a crime with it. They might just be celebrating one of their hate-demonstrations.

Do you even believe that choices exist? I thought you were defending determinism not too long ago. (Or am I confusing you with someone else?) Or is it a "choice" even if you don't have any free will in order to influence that "choice"?

You're drawing analogies between gay people and the WBC now? Has Volpone hacked your account?

I think Volpone should be forced to marry Teh Baba.

Of the ass?

FTFY. He wasn't discussing their beliefs or their behaviors, but their potential to catalyze discriminatory behavior. As such, the comparison was perfectly valid. Of course, you needed that pointed out to you because either you're playing stupid or, more disappointingly, you're not playing.

indeed. Of course you can pick any random trait you like. I, for example, can't have mustaches on men. I hate them with the fiery passion of a thousand supernovae. Would you be OK if I opened a restaurant that refuses to do business with mustache'd men or would you write a scathing little post about how stupid (or even discriminatory) that is? But why would you cheer someone who does the same stupid thing only with a different trait?

That's not so different from places with dress codes. How are those not discriminatory? And why is nobody raising hell over that?

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive statements. You can be OK with someone having the right to do something, and still think it is wrong and/or stupid. That's my attitude toward smokers, for example. I am absolutely fine with them having the right to do so (provided they don't inflict their stink on those who don't wish to participate), but that's not going to prevent me from thinking and stating that I think you have to be rather silly to deliberately do something that is so damaging to your health.

Willingly according people the liberty to do something does not in any way or to any degree imply that you must or even necessarily ought to approve of said behaviour, or that you forfeit your right to express your disaproval.

What's the difference between an unwanted baby and a surly lesbian couple?

Don't go changin', Crazy Lady. I'll do you one better: You know how I'd feel if a store refused to sell shit to left handed people (I'm left handed)? I'd laugh about it and go to the store right next to it and buy what I wanted. Then I'd get on Facebook and mention what a shitty store the RightStore was. Problem solved.

I certainly wouldn't need to run like a whiny little bitch with a skinned knee to the police. I mean, shit, in the time it took these cunts to file a complaint with the police department they could've gotten their cake. And they wouldn't have tied up limited law enforcement resources with such a petty and retarded matter.

If they do prosecute on this and I were the judge, I'd make these two cunts go stand on a street corner with "I'm a stupid dyke" signs around their neck for a month.

Interesting expansion there, ok with an action versus ok with a liberty. To me, if something is wrong and/or stupid, that means it is not ok. But of course, something can be not ok and yet be rightly legal. You seem to be using "not ok" as shorthand for "should be outlawed". That seems to me to be a fairly recent usage, and one highly symptomatic of a bundle of cultural subgroups all set in a battle to dictate their lifestyle to others.

^ The reason I am using it that way is because in this thread, it has clearly been used that way. The very person Aurora addressed made it very clear in his posts that he didn't have to approve, but that he didn't think it should be illegal. Thus, it seems appropriate to use it the way it has been used in this context. The whole subject here has not been whether or not bigotry is a good thing, but whether or not bigots should have the legal right to refuse to enter into a commercial contract on the basis of their bigotry.

If Aurora meant it in another sense, then it was totally off-topic and a false dichotomy. Personally, I think she was more aware of the subject here than that.

She refused to let me eat there.......

I'll show her. I'll show the world!!!

^ yes, him too. But they're evil on every man

What about beards?

If she hates beards, I'll be broken-hearted.

But I still won't shave! I will never give in to this kind of discrimination!

It's a complex question, and I don't think the way it's usually approached as "either/or" is appropriate or helpful. We also lack the knowledge to address the question definitively.
It's probably that I've rejected some version of the "free choice" paradigm in some discussion, though certainly not in the simplistic way that John Castle is lying about.

FTFY.

Yes indeed!I still maintain that determinism is not only compatible, but necessary for any meaningful free will to exist. I'm just throwing this in there to see Asyncritus' head explode.

OOH! OOH! I just figured out a solution where everyone wins!

This guy should agree to make a cake for the lesbians. Then he should charge them as much as he's ever charged anyone for a wedding cake and donate the proceeds in their name to the Westboro Baptist Church.

Heck, he could probably even tell the the date and location of their wedding!

No, everybody doesn't win.
How do you manage to finagle some gay sex out of the deal?
That's usually somewhere in your diabolical schemes.

I wouldn't go so far as to say 'necessary', but I don't see determinism and free will as being incompatible. Just because the universe decides what you get, that doesn't impair your ability to freely will something else.

Holy shit!

He finally came out of the closet.

Your right to equal protection of the law is only a guarantee that the STATE will treat you equally. IN NO WAY does it mean that everyone is required to like you, respect you, associate with you, or serve you.