Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
So why do we discriminate against adults who provide young teens with sexual practice and favors? Surely this is a "group." What about if a "group" wanted a satanic cake? Is there no recourse for the Christian baker? As an American, I understand that you have the right to seek out "happiness as you deem fit. However, that should in no way mean that I, as an American running a legitimate business, have to fulfill your personal happiness sheet at the expense of my beliefs and obligations to enlightening society with regards to those of my own.And yet Creationism and those who would present it are excluded from Public education. While presenting that homosexuality as an alternative cannot be. I dare say that there are whites, blacks, brown, yellow and red people who can and do believe there are very ethical, logical, and rational reasons that Creationism is a viable alternative to evolution and uniformitarianism. In fact there are very likely more than 40% of the population understands a God Created alternative.It has been determined in the State of Oregon, that your religious views and superstitions are not a good enough reason to discriminate against entire groups of people. If you do this, you will be sued by the state for not following the law. If you think you cannot follow the law, then you don't have to open a "public accommodation" business. Simple.
This is because, the "public" includes gays, blacks, and other people you might not like.
And yet creationist Christians,. Jews, Moslems, and Hindi among others are not accommodated and in fact are DISCRIMINATED against.
Creationist threads are continuously moved to the "religious" section by the request of Atheists and yet secular educated "guesses" are allowed to remain un disturbed.
Of course, you likely believe that religion is purely a choice.... There are black, white, brown, yellow, and red people who have engaged in homosexual sex. It is not the person who is being ostracized but the celebration and commemoration of their choices which are. Sorry, however, there are plenty of businesses which will cater to the "sexual choice" crowd. Public education is a taxpayer monopoly that is being controlled and manipulated by a governmental bureaucracy which is becoming more and more the bully pulpit of hedonistic secularists.
So, the point is, that nothing is SIMPLE. And if YOU want to remain a homosexual, I as a businessman should not be made responsible for providing you with Homosexually oriented cards, toys, hotel marriage suite accommodations, publications, articles, photographs, decorated cakes/candies, and classroom instruction. That is for someone else to choose to do --- this is suppose to be a free country and not a DICTATORSHIP.
What in the world??? This delusional rant doesn't even make sense! The point is, no, you do not have the right to discriminate against other groups of people. If you don't like that, it is too bad because that is the law. And again, this law cited has absolutely NOTHING to do with the product you offer. It has to do with denying to accommodate the public. The "public" includes gay people.
The State laws were modeled on the Federal one, and expanded by the States. but the original federal one was aimed at systemic government mandated discrimination, not individual trivial cases.
The states are allowed to make laws regarding commerce and business, and they don't recognize discrimination as practicing a religion. That is a fact. That is why, when challenged, you will fail.
The laws of commerce still must accede to the bill of rights, and a compelling government interest must be shown if they are to be restricted.
Sorry, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you are superior to another American citizen and entitled to refuse them service when you open a business in your state.
Then the 1st amendment holds sway, and government has to prove a compelling interest to force someone to give up their 1st amendment rights.
Getting rid of Jim Crow is a compelling interest, if a whole town decided to ban commerce gays would be a compelling interest, gays being denied a seat at a restaurant, while not a compelling interest, falls under the original intent of PA laws, and would not be an undue burden.
But asking someone to make something for a celebration of the gay lifestyle, said lifestyle being against that person's moral code is not a compelling interest unless other factors are involved.
So . . . when you going to start your email and letter writing campaign to try to convince the government that gay American citizens are evil or sinners and are not entitled to the same treatment as any other American citizen?
A Catholic priest is a part of a "religious institution." A bakery is not. You see? This is why you are dumb.
Or you won't be because now the cult of LGBT is the official state religion? Comrad? Your thoughts?
Sorry, discrimination is not recognized as a "religious right." That's a fact.
So you can force a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple?
A Catholic priest is a part of a "religious institution." A bakery is not. You see? This is why you are dumb.
Where in the constitution does free exercise of religion be limited to clergy? What of religions with no organized clergy?
You see? This is why I call you dumb-dumb. You do not understand the law at all. Sad. If you open a business, you are under the rules and regulations regarding that particular business. Only religious organizations are allowed to "refuse" service because of religious beliefs. If you open a bakery, a car wash, a grocery store, you do not have that right. You are then considered a "public accommodation" business and you have to obey the laws put forth by your state with regards to discrimination. NO, the states are not going to disregard these laws. That would be stupid. The government is concerned with making an equal and level playing field for all employees, customers and citizens of America. Your religious views do not effect our secular business laws. Sorry, but they don't.
Like I told you earlier, these same arguments were brought up when it was deemed by the states that you could no longer discriminate against black people. They failed then, and they will fail now.
The States were forced originally to do so because they were government, and state governments cannot discriminate based on equal protection (although ironically the 14th amendment only applies to the States, so there really is no constitutional equal protection for federal law).
PA laws of an overreaching nature came later. And they were not challenged because the people being charged were actual racists, and thus not the most pleasing people. Now you have people of faith being persecuted.
A backlash will be inevitable, Americans don't like bullies. Up to this point that concept has helped the gay rights movement, but now that the pendulum has swung, it's probably going to hurt it.
A Catholic priest is a part of a "religious institution." A bakery is not. You see? This is why you are dumb.
Yes, but a bakery didn't turn down participation/promotion of a gay wedding; two living breathing people did. It's their business comrad Chris.
Go to town though, start your campaign. I think it's quite entertaining.
This is not a federal law. It is a STATE law that was violated. A state law in regards to business and commerce and public accommodation.
The State laws were modeled on the Federal one, and expanded by the States. but the original federal one was aimed at systemic government mandated discrimination, not individual trivial cases.
The states are allowed to make laws regarding commerce and business, and they don't recognize discrimination as practicing a religion. That is a fact. That is why, when challenged, you will fail.
The laws of commerce still must accede to the bill of rights, and a compelling government interest must be shown if they are to be restricted.
Sorry, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you are superior to another American citizen and entitled to refuse them service when you open a business in your state.
Then the 1st amendment holds sway, and government has to prove a compelling interest to force someone to give up their 1st amendment rights.
Getting rid of Jim Crow is a compelling interest, if a whole town decided to ban commerce gays would be a compelling interest, gays being denied a seat at a restaurant, while not a compelling interest, falls under the original intent of PA laws, and would not be an undue burden.
But asking someone to make something for a celebration of the gay lifestyle, said lifestyle being against that person's moral code is not a compelling interest unless other factors are involved.
So you can force a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple?
A Catholic priest is a part of a "religious institution." A bakery is not. You see? This is why you are dumb.
Where in the constitution does free exercise of religion be limited to clergy? What of religions with no organized clergy?
You see? This is why I call you dumb-dumb. You do not understand the law at all. Sad. If you open a business, you are under the rules and regulations regarding that particular business. Only religious organizations are allowed to "refuse" service because of religious beliefs. If you open a bakery, a car wash, a grocery store, you do not have that right. You are then considered a "public accommodation" business and you have to obey the laws put forth by your state with regards to discrimination. NO, the states are not going to disregard these laws. That would be stupid. The government is concerned with making an equal and level playing field for all employees, customers and citizens of America. Your religious views do not effect our secular business laws. Sorry, but they don't.
Like I told you earlier, these same arguments were brought up when it was deemed by the states that you could no longer discriminate against black people. They failed then, and they will fail now.
The States were forced originally to do so because they were government, and state governments cannot discriminate based on equal protection (although ironically the 14th amendment only applies to the States, so there really is no constitutional equal protection for federal law).
PA laws of an overreaching nature came later. And they were not challenged because the people being charged were actual racists, and thus not the most pleasing people. Now you have people of faith being persecuted.
A backlash will be inevitable, Americans don't like bullies. Up to this point that concept has helped the gay rights movement, but now that the pendulum has swung, it's probably going to hurt it.
Better start trying to convince the government that they are wrong and that it is your right to treat people unequally, and to hell with civil rights. Lol. Hilariously stupid.
A Catholic priest is a part of a "religious institution." A bakery is not. You see? This is why you are dumb.
Yes, but a bakery didn't turn down participation/promotion of a gay wedding; two living breathing people did. It's their business comrad Chris.
They violated the law in their state. That's all there is to it. There is nothing more. You can try to get the law changed, but it's not going to happen. You tried these very same angles with the blacks and it didn't work then either.
The State laws were modeled on the Federal one, and expanded by the States. but the original federal one was aimed at systemic government mandated discrimination, not individual trivial cases.
The states are allowed to make laws regarding commerce and business, and they don't recognize discrimination as practicing a religion. That is a fact. That is why, when challenged, you will fail.
The laws of commerce still must accede to the bill of rights, and a compelling government interest must be shown if they are to be restricted.
Sorry, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you are superior to another American citizen and entitled to refuse them service when you open a business in your state.
Then the 1st amendment holds sway, and government has to prove a compelling interest to force someone to give up their 1st amendment rights.
Getting rid of Jim Crow is a compelling interest, if a whole town decided to ban commerce gays would be a compelling interest, gays being denied a seat at a restaurant, while not a compelling interest, falls under the original intent of PA laws, and would not be an undue burden.
But asking someone to make something for a celebration of the gay lifestyle, said lifestyle being against that person's moral code is not a compelling interest unless other factors are involved.
The government has deemed that a person's civil rights trump your perceived "right" to discriminate against said person.
A Catholic priest is a part of a "religious institution." A bakery is not. You see? This is why you are dumb.
Where in the constitution does free exercise of religion be limited to clergy? What of religions with no organized clergy?
You see? This is why I call you dumb-dumb. You do not understand the law at all. Sad. If you open a business, you are under the rules and regulations regarding that particular business. Only religious organizations are allowed to "refuse" service because of religious beliefs. If you open a bakery, a car wash, a grocery store, you do not have that right. You are then considered a "public accommodation" business and you have to obey the laws put forth by your state with regards to discrimination. NO, the states are not going to disregard these laws. That would be stupid. The government is concerned with making an equal and level playing field for all employees, customers and citizens of America. Your religious views do not effect our secular business laws. Sorry, but they don't.
Like I told you earlier, these same arguments were brought up when it was deemed by the states that you could no longer discriminate against black people. They failed then, and they will fail now.
The States were forced originally to do so because they were government, and state governments cannot discriminate based on equal protection (although ironically the 14th amendment only applies to the States, so there really is no constitutional equal protection for federal law).
PA laws of an overreaching nature came later. And they were not challenged because the people being charged were actual racists, and thus not the most pleasing people. Now you have people of faith being persecuted.
A backlash will be inevitable, Americans don't like bullies. Up to this point that concept has helped the gay rights movement, but now that the pendulum has swung, it's probably going to hurt it.
Better start trying to convince the government that they are wrong and that it is your right to treat people unequally, and to hell with civil rights. Lol. Hilariously stupid.
The backlash is already starting.
Wedding Businesses Should Be Allowed To Deny Service To Gay Couples Associated Press-GfK Poll Finds
This is from before the SSM ruling, and before the flood of prosecutions sure to start. Again, American's don't like bullies, and in this case your side is the bully.
When it was about marriage, the other side was the bully.
Like I told you, you go try to change the law to allow you to discriminate. Go ahead. I think it's hilarious. The State laws were modeled on the Federal one, and expanded by the States. but the original federal one was aimed at systemic government mandated discrimination, not individual trivial cases.
The states are allowed to make laws regarding commerce and business, and they don't recognize discrimination as practicing a religion. That is a fact. That is why, when challenged, you will fail.
The laws of commerce still must accede to the bill of rights, and a compelling government interest must be shown if they are to be restricted.
Sorry, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you are superior to another American citizen and entitled to refuse them service when you open a business in your state.
Then the 1st amendment holds sway, and government has to prove a compelling interest to force someone to give up their 1st amendment rights.
Getting rid of Jim Crow is a compelling interest, if a whole town decided to ban commerce gays would be a compelling interest, gays being denied a seat at a restaurant, while not a compelling interest, falls under the original intent of PA laws, and would not be an undue burden.
But asking someone to make something for a celebration of the gay lifestyle, said lifestyle being against that person's moral code is not a compelling interest unless other factors are involved.
Gays are American citizens. The government doesn't care what they do in their bedrooms. Only you insecure religious people are concerned with that kind of stuff.
The State laws were modeled on the Federal one, and expanded by the States. but the original federal one was aimed at systemic government mandated discrimination, not individual trivial cases.
The states are allowed to make laws regarding commerce and business, and they don't recognize discrimination as practicing a religion. That is a fact. That is why, when challenged, you will fail.
The laws of commerce still must accede to the bill of rights, and a compelling government interest must be shown if they are to be restricted.
Sorry, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you are superior to another American citizen and entitled to refuse them service when you open a business in your state.
Then the 1st amendment holds sway, and government has to prove a compelling interest to force someone to give up their 1st amendment rights.
Getting rid of Jim Crow is a compelling interest, if a whole town decided to ban commerce gays would be a compelling interest, gays being denied a seat at a restaurant, while not a compelling interest, falls under the original intent of PA laws, and would not be an undue burden.
But asking someone to make something for a celebration of the gay lifestyle, said lifestyle being against that person's moral code is not a compelling interest unless other factors are involved.
So . . . when you going to start your email and letter writing campaign to try to convince the government that gay American citizens are evil or sinners and are not entitled to the same treatment as any other American citizen?
The government may not give two hoots what people do in their bedrooms, but when the government tells me who I must appease and perform tasks for, then that is an entirely different matter.The State laws were modeled on the Federal one, and expanded by the States. but the original federal one was aimed at systemic government mandated discrimination, not individual trivial cases.
The states are allowed to make laws regarding commerce and business, and they don't recognize discrimination as practicing a religion. That is a fact. That is why, when challenged, you will fail.
The laws of commerce still must accede to the bill of rights, and a compelling government interest must be shown if they are to be restricted.
Sorry, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you are superior to another American citizen and entitled to refuse them service when you open a business in your state.
Then the 1st amendment holds sway, and government has to prove a compelling interest to force someone to give up their 1st amendment rights.
Getting rid of Jim Crow is a compelling interest, if a whole town decided to ban commerce gays would be a compelling interest, gays being denied a seat at a restaurant, while not a compelling interest, falls under the original intent of PA laws, and would not be an undue burden.
But asking someone to make something for a celebration of the gay lifestyle, said lifestyle being against that person's moral code is not a compelling interest unless other factors are involved.
Gays are American citizens. The government doesn't care what they do in their bedrooms. Only you insecure religious people are concerned with that kind of stuff.
The states are allowed to make laws regarding commerce and business, and they don't recognize discrimination as practicing a religion. That is a fact. That is why, when challenged, you will fail.
The laws of commerce still must accede to the bill of rights, and a compelling government interest must be shown if they are to be restricted.
Sorry, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you are superior to another American citizen and entitled to refuse them service when you open a business in your state.
Then the 1st amendment holds sway, and government has to prove a compelling interest to force someone to give up their 1st amendment rights.
Getting rid of Jim Crow is a compelling interest, if a whole town decided to ban commerce gays would be a compelling interest, gays being denied a seat at a restaurant, while not a compelling interest, falls under the original intent of PA laws, and would not be an undue burden.
But asking someone to make something for a celebration of the gay lifestyle, said lifestyle being against that person's moral code is not a compelling interest unless other factors are involved.
The government has deemed that a person's civil rights trump your perceived "right" to discriminate against said person.
again, there is no civil right to a wedding cake.
Simple for us smart people to understand.
The states are allowed to make laws regarding commerce and business, and they don't recognize discrimination as practicing a religion. That is a fact. That is why, when challenged, you will fail.
The laws of commerce still must accede to the bill of rights, and a compelling government interest must be shown if they are to be restricted.
Sorry, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you are superior to another American citizen and entitled to refuse them service when you open a business in your state.
Then the 1st amendment holds sway, and government has to prove a compelling interest to force someone to give up their 1st amendment rights.
Getting rid of Jim Crow is a compelling interest, if a whole town decided to ban commerce gays would be a compelling interest, gays being denied a seat at a restaurant, while not a compelling interest, falls under the original intent of PA laws, and would not be an undue burden.
But asking someone to make something for a celebration of the gay lifestyle, said lifestyle being against that person's moral code is not a compelling interest unless other factors are involved.
Gays are American citizens. The government doesn't care what they do in their bedrooms. Only you insecure religious people are concerned with that kind of stuff.The states are allowed to make laws regarding commerce and business, and they don't recognize discrimination as practicing a religion. That is a fact. That is why, when challenged, you will fail.
The laws of commerce still must accede to the bill of rights, and a compelling government interest must be shown if they are to be restricted.
Sorry, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you are superior to another American citizen and entitled to refuse them service when you open a business in your state.
Then the 1st amendment holds sway, and government has to prove a compelling interest to force someone to give up their 1st amendment rights.
Getting rid of Jim Crow is a compelling interest, if a whole town decided to ban commerce gays would be a compelling interest, gays being denied a seat at a restaurant, while not a compelling interest, falls under the original intent of PA laws, and would not be an undue burden.
But asking someone to make something for a celebration of the gay lifestyle, said lifestyle being against that person's moral code is not a compelling interest unless other factors are involved.
So . . . when you going to start your email and letter writing campaign to try to convince the government that gay American citizens are evil or sinners and are not entitled to the same treatment as any other American citizen?The government may not give two hoots what people do in their bedrooms, but when the government tells me who I must appease and perform tasks for, then that is an entirely different matter.The states are allowed to make laws regarding commerce and business, and they don't recognize discrimination as practicing a religion. That is a fact. That is why, when challenged, you will fail.
The laws of commerce still must accede to the bill of rights, and a compelling government interest must be shown if they are to be restricted.
Sorry, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you are superior to another American citizen and entitled to refuse them service when you open a business in your state.
Then the 1st amendment holds sway, and government has to prove a compelling interest to force someone to give up their 1st amendment rights.
Getting rid of Jim Crow is a compelling interest, if a whole town decided to ban commerce gays would be a compelling interest, gays being denied a seat at a restaurant, while not a compelling interest, falls under the original intent of PA laws, and would not be an undue burden.
But asking someone to make something for a celebration of the gay lifestyle, said lifestyle being against that person's moral code is not a compelling interest unless other factors are involved.
Gays are American citizens. The government doesn't care what they do in their bedrooms. Only you insecure religious people are concerned with that kind of stuff.
It really doesn't matter how much you pout, it's still the law and you will be sued if you do this. My suggestion? Don't open a business if you cannot run it in accordance to your state and local ordinances.Where in the constitution does free exercise of religion be limited to clergy? What of religions with no organized clergy?
You see? This is why I call you dumb-dumb. You do not understand the law at all. Sad. If you open a business, you are under the rules and regulations regarding that particular business. Only religious organizations are allowed to "refuse" service because of religious beliefs. If you open a bakery, a car wash, a grocery store, you do not have that right. You are then considered a "public accommodation" business and you have to obey the laws put forth by your state with regards to discrimination. NO, the states are not going to disregard these laws. That would be stupid. The government is concerned with making an equal and level playing field for all employees, customers and citizens of America. Your religious views do not effect our secular business laws. Sorry, but they don't.
Like I told you earlier, these same arguments were brought up when it was deemed by the states that you could no longer discriminate against black people. They failed then, and they will fail now.
The States were forced originally to do so because they were government, and state governments cannot discriminate based on equal protection (although ironically the 14th amendment only applies to the States, so there really is no constitutional equal protection for federal law).
PA laws of an overreaching nature came later. And they were not challenged because the people being charged were actual racists, and thus not the most pleasing people. Now you have people of faith being persecuted.
A backlash will be inevitable, Americans don't like bullies. Up to this point that concept has helped the gay rights movement, but now that the pendulum has swung, it's probably going to hurt it.
Better start trying to convince the government that they are wrong and that it is your right to treat people unequally, and to hell with civil rights. Lol. Hilariously stupid.
The backlash is already starting.
Wedding Businesses Should Be Allowed To Deny Service To Gay Couples Associated Press-GfK Poll Finds
This is from before the SSM ruling, and before the flood of prosecutions sure to start. Again, American's don't like bullies, and in this case your side is the bully.
When it was about marriage, the other side was the bully.
Lol.
You see? This is why I call you dumb-dumb. You do not understand the law at all. Sad. If you open a business, you are under the rules and regulations regarding that particular business. Only religious organizations are allowed to "refuse" service because of religious beliefs. If you open a bakery, a car wash, a grocery store, you do not have that right. You are then considered a "public accommodation" business and you have to obey the laws put forth by your state with regards to discrimination. NO, the states are not going to disregard these laws. That would be stupid. The government is concerned with making an equal and level playing field for all employees, customers and citizens of America. Your religious views do not effect our secular business laws. Sorry, but they don't.
Like I told you earlier, these same arguments were brought up when it was deemed by the states that you could no longer discriminate against black people. They failed then, and they will fail now.
The States were forced originally to do so because they were government, and state governments cannot discriminate based on equal protection (although ironically the 14th amendment only applies to the States, so there really is no constitutional equal protection for federal law).
PA laws of an overreaching nature came later. And they were not challenged because the people being charged were actual racists, and thus not the most pleasing people. Now you have people of faith being persecuted.
A backlash will be inevitable, Americans don't like bullies. Up to this point that concept has helped the gay rights movement, but now that the pendulum has swung, it's probably going to hurt it.
Better start trying to convince the government that they are wrong and that it is your right to treat people unequally, and to hell with civil rights. Lol. Hilariously stupid.
The backlash is already starting.
Wedding Businesses Should Be Allowed To Deny Service To Gay Couples Associated Press-GfK Poll Finds
This is from before the SSM ruling, and before the flood of prosecutions sure to start. Again, American's don't like bullies, and in this case your side is the bully.
When it was about marriage, the other side was the bully.
Lol.
Even my gay friends have figured this out. It's not as "inconceivable" as you seem to think.
Yes, but a bakery didn't turn down participation/promotion of a gay wedding; two living breathing people did. It's their business comrad Chris. And their 1st Amendment civil right to do so. So says the 9th Amendment.A Catholic priest is a part of a "religious institution." A bakery is not. You see? This is why you are dumb.
Or you won't be because now the cult of LGBT is the official state religion? Comrad? Your thoughts?They violated the law in their state. That's all there is to it. There is nothing more. You can try to get the law changed, but it's not going to happen. You tried these very same angles with the blacks and it didn't work then either.
Yes, but a bakery didn't turn down participation/promotion of a gay wedding; two living breathing people did. It's their business comrad Chris. And their 1st Amendment civil right to do so. So says the 9th Amendment.A Catholic priest is a part of a "religious institution." A bakery is not. You see? This is why you are dumb.
When a Christian sues a gay billboard designer for not printing "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" on his convictions and principles to refuse, you'll be right there defending the Christian's right to sue him I suppose?
They violated the law in their state. That's all there is to it. There is nothing more. You can try to get the law changed, but it's not going to happen. You tried these very same angles with the blacks and it didn't work then either.
Which is dominant; the "law in their state" (which prohibits violation of ANY civil right, including the 1st Amendment) or the US Constitution? Shall we check the 9th Amendment to see which would be dominant? If a law in their state is unconstitutional and their civil rights have been violated, they will "entertain" you by appealing it to SCOTUS. You should be familiar with that song and dance. Or are people who practice homosexuality as a lifestyle the only ones allowed to appeal civil rights to SCOTUS?
Looks like those bakers are preparing to "entertain" you...they said on Hannity they were going to appeal.
The States were forced originally to do so because they were government, and state governments cannot discriminate based on equal protection (although ironically the 14th amendment only applies to the States, so there really is no constitutional equal protection for federal law).
PA laws of an overreaching nature came later. And they were not challenged because the people being charged were actual racists, and thus not the most pleasing people. Now you have people of faith being persecuted.
A backlash will be inevitable, Americans don't like bullies. Up to this point that concept has helped the gay rights movement, but now that the pendulum has swung, it's probably going to hurt it.
Better start trying to convince the government that they are wrong and that it is your right to treat people unequally, and to hell with civil rights. Lol. Hilariously stupid.
The backlash is already starting.
Wedding Businesses Should Be Allowed To Deny Service To Gay Couples Associated Press-GfK Poll Finds
This is from before the SSM ruling, and before the flood of prosecutions sure to start. Again, American's don't like bullies, and in this case your side is the bully.
When it was about marriage, the other side was the bully.
Lol.
Even my gay friends have figured this out. It's not as "inconceivable" as you seem to think.
Well? What are you waiting for? Go ahead and start your campaign to change the law to allow you to discriminate against gay people in Oregon. Go on! Hop to it!
