If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Seawytch]

They are not concerned with losing that one customer, but that customer has no other option. I guess minorities just have to pump their own shit and grow their own food, right

Will you stand with me and defend my right to free speech?

Will you defend that freedom for David Duke? John Rocker? The Westbouough Baptist Church?

If you will not defend any of those, you have failed the trial of liberty.

It's easy to defend the liberty of those with whom you agree. A true demonstration of committment to liberty is defending the rights of assholes.

In doing so, many, many others will follow.

What does that have to do with whether or not the only septic service that will come to my home should be allowed to refuse to pump queer shit?

 

[Silhouette]

Why should one private business be allowed to legally discriminate and not another?

If you understand that the Court said the state can't hold one ideological lifestyle as preferred to another, then your question would be answered with simplicity. Mull it over grasshopper.

 

[jc456]

How about getting rid of protective classes altogether having them is discriminatory.

So who gets to discriminate? There’s only one propane company and one honey dipper that services where I live. Should they be able to discriminate? The only gas station? Grocery store?

It's a private business if they want to lose money by discrimination its their decision . I'm sure you are one of those with the "you didn't build that" mentality but no one has the right to tell private citizens how to run their own business certainly not the Fed. Nothing has ever been improved by the government getting involved.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

They are not concerned with losing that one customer, but that customer has no other option. I guess minorities just have to pump their own shit and grow their own food, right?

Cake is not essential to life. But this is funny in a way. The reason a Wedding Cake is Historically the centerpiece of a wedding is so the Bride and Groom is ensured fertility.

Nobody said it is essential to life. Why should one private business be allowed to legally discriminate and not another?

You really just pull shit out of your ass don’t you?

One of the first traditions began in Ancient Rome where bread was broken over the bride’s head to bring good fortune to the couple.[2]

Wedding cake was originally a luxury item, and a sign of celebration and social status. The bigger the cake, the higher the social standing. Wedding cakes in England and early America were traditionally fruit cakes, often topped with marzipan and icing with tiers, Cutting the cake was an important part of the reception. White icing was also a symbol of money and social importance in Victorian times, so a white cake was highly desired.[3] Today, many flavors and configurations are available in addition to the traditional all-white tiered cake.[4]

In Medieval England cakes were stacked as high as possible for the bride and groom to kiss over. A successful kiss meant they were guaranteed a prosperous life together.[2] From this the Croquembouche was created.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_cake

it says bride. bride equals woman. so out of the gay couple which one is the woman? oh wait, there isn't one. so your tradition post you just nicely posted up is worse than the baker's rights.,

 

[Silhouette]

What does that have to do with whether or not the only septic service that will come to my home should be allowed to refuse to pump queer shit?

Because queer- lifestylists eat and shit just like everyone else. It isn't a direct-condoning of that which is a new and unique repugnant concept to a Christian: the bastardization of the word "marriage" where children are involved and used to get the benefit of both mother and father. A new contract instead banishes them from that benefit. Christians believe that marriage requires both mother and father as the nuclear family unit where children are always assumed to arrive or be part of; whether or not the rare exception happens.

 

[jc456]

What does that have to do with whether or not the only septic service that will come to my home should be allowed to refuse to pump queer shit?

Because queer- lifestylists eat and shit just like everyone else. It isn't a direct-condoning of that which is a new and unique repugnant concept to a Christian: the bastardization of the word "marriage" where children are involved and used to get the benefit of both mother and father. A new contract instead banishes them from that benefit. Christians believe that marriage requires both mother and father as the nuclear family unit where children are always assumed to arrive or be part of; whether or not the rare exception happens.

there is even a need to consummate the marriage. I bet these leftists toads don't even know this. It's what annulled many a marriages.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

sure it is. why the fk you think we have so many kids fked up. Either missing a mother or a father. yep, statistics say kids need one of each for development and maturity.

Why Children Need a Male and Female Parent | Cornerstone Family Council

• "The cooperative input and influence of a male parent and a female parent is essential for proper child development.
• “As fathering expert Dr. Kyle Pruett of YaleMedicalSchool explains in Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child, “fathers do not mother.” Psychology Today explains, “fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.” A father, as a male parent, brings unique contributions to the parenting project.
• Likewise, a mother, as a female, uniquely impacts the life and development of her child, as Dr. Brenda Hunter explains in her book, The Power of Mother Love: Transforming Both Mother and Child. Erik Erikson, a pioneer in the world of child psychology, explained that father love and mother love are qualitatively different kinds of love. As cited in Kyle D. Pruett, The Nurturing Father, (New York: Warner Books, 1987), p. 49."

Divorce is why so many kids are “fucked up”. Kids do best with two parents. The gender is immaterial.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121135904.htm

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.

As the researchers write: "The social science research that is routinely cited does not actually speak to the questions of whether or not children need both a mother and a father at home. Instead proponents generally cite research that compares [heterosexual two-parent] families with single parents, thus conflating the number with the gender of parents."

As I said.

If evidence is proffered that shows a high probability that children suffer from some psychological or developmental defect based SOLELY on the fact that their parents are same-sex, I will reconsider.

But I will bet the motherfucking farm that no such evidence will ever be produced, even if there is underlying truth to such a claim (there's not). The study would need to include hetero families and somehow exclude all the other factors or potential factors. Nobody would pay for such a study anyway, so I think we can put the issue to bed.

So what you're saying is that because no one is willing to pay for the research, and everyone's too afraid to DO the research because they don't want to be called "homophobic", that must mean there's nothing to research?

There is a mountain of research that was conducted with no political, religious or social agenda and that was peer reviewd that found that children of same sex parents did as well in all areas as other children. If you say please I will share it with you.

peer review, smear review. that means absolutely nothing. Not a damn thing. stick that word back in the book you pulled it from.

That you for that brilliant and cogent analysis of the methods of empirical social research. No doubt that you come well credentialed. Now lets see how well you can refute the findings

 

[jc456]

Divorce is why so many kids are “fucked up”. Kids do best with two parents. The gender is immaterial.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121135904.htm

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.

As the researchers write: "The social science research that is routinely cited does not actually speak to the questions of whether or not children need both a mother and a father at home. Instead proponents generally cite research that compares [heterosexual two-parent] families with single parents, thus conflating the number with the gender of parents."

As I said.

If evidence is proffered that shows a high probability that children suffer from some psychological or developmental defect based SOLELY on the fact that their parents are same-sex, I will reconsider.

But I will bet the motherfucking farm that no such evidence will ever be produced, even if there is underlying truth to such a claim (there's not). The study would need to include hetero families and somehow exclude all the other factors or potential factors. Nobody would pay for such a study anyway, so I think we can put the issue to bed.

So what you're saying is that because no one is willing to pay for the research, and everyone's too afraid to DO the research because they don't want to be called "homophobic", that must mean there's nothing to research?

There is a mountain of research that was conducted with no political, religious or social agenda and that was peer reviewd that found that children of same sex parents did as well in all areas as other children. If you say please I will share it with you.

peer review, smear review. that means absolutely nothing. Not a damn thing. stick that word back in the book you pulled it from.

That you for that brilliant and cogent analysis of the methods of empirical social research. No doubt that you come well credentialed. Now lets see how well you can refute the findings

findings of what?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As far as gay marriage, Individuals have the right of freedom of association without coercion. This is fundamental. Why do you want license? All that's doing is telling the government you aren't capable of running a houshold and managing a marriage/family without government oversight. People don't often think about the meaning of government license for what it actually is. They should.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

The two types are not equal in the first place, and the wedding cake (a symbol of the blessing of fertility upon the Bride and Groom) is, Ironically, the perfect thing to point this difference out.

Still blathering about that fertility horseshit I see. Give it a rest.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As far as gay marriage, Individuals have the right of freedom of association without coercion. This is fundamental. Why do you want license? All that's doing is telling the government you aren't capable of running a houshold and managing a marriage/family without government oversight. People don't often think about the meaning of government license for what it actually is. They should.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

no it wasn't. it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists, can't stand your sorry asses.

I have a hot news flash for you. It has already been changed. It only a few regressive holdouts like you who are still prattling about it. Get over it and move on.

 

[jc456]

As far as gay marriage, Individuals have the right of freedom of association without coercion. This is fundamental. Why do you want license? All that's doing is telling the government you aren't capable of running a houshold and managing a marriage/family without government oversight. People don't often think about the meaning of government license for what it actually is. They should.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

no it wasn't. it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists, can't stand your sorry asses.

I have a hot news flash for you. It has already been changed. It only a few regressive holdouts like you who are still prattling about it. Get over it and move on.

no it hasn't. so sorry.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What does that have to do with whether or not the only septic service that will come to my home should be allowed to refuse to pump queer shit?

You really don't see the big picture, do you?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That is quite an unhinged rant. What the hell do you mean by "my lifestyle"?? You don't know me and don't presume to. Discrimination in the name of religion is still discrimination. If a person is treated differently that another person based on characteristic, that is discrimination. Maybe there is not other baker that has what they want. Maybe there is no other baker at all. Maybe it is just an annoyance to go elsewhere. Think about how you would feel if it were you. People like you make me fucking crazy

I genuinly empathize with those who are victims of discrimination.

What I ask them to do is let freedom take priority to the greatest extent possible, and find a solution that preserves freedom above all else.

In the situation at hand, I am asking gay couples to let bigoted assholes have their liberty. I don't like it either, but there is a much more important primciple I wish to preserve. I am asking you to trust liberty and have faith in people.

It takes courage to put faith in people and trust that, for the most part, they will treat others with respect and dignity in the marketplace. Applying government force is the antithesis of faith in people and the enemy of liberty. Using force to get what you want allow others to use force to get what they want, until liberty is dead.

If gay couples would demonstrate their support for liberty and openly support the right of the bigot baker to refuse service, many, including the bigot baker, will appreciate it, and many bigots, including the baker, could have a change of heart and recognize their error.

It happened to me. I am living proof that liberty is reciprocated. Liberty is powerful.

That is rather idealistic and I'm not sure how realistic it is.

Ok I might be open to allowing bigoted shop owners discriminate, although it is against my principles. But where does it stop?

What about the bigoted employer who fires someone after seeing pictures of their same sex wedding on social media?

What about the bigoted land lord who wont rent that apartment to the gay couple that they really wanted?

What about the bigots who-right now in Texas- are pursuing litigation to get the City of Huston to stop providing employee benefits to spouses of a gay worker claiming that it goes beyond the intent of Obergefell?

Get the picture? If the Baker can discriminate, who then cannot?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As I said.

If evidence is proffered that shows a high probability that children suffer from some psychological or developmental defect based SOLELY on the fact that their parents are same-sex, I will reconsider.

But I will bet the motherfucking farm that no such evidence will ever be produced, even if there is underlying truth to such a claim (there's not). The study would need to include hetero families and somehow exclude all the other factors or potential factors. Nobody would pay for such a study anyway, so I think we can put the issue to bed.

So what you're saying is that because no one is willing to pay for the research, and everyone's too afraid to DO the research because they don't want to be called "homophobic", that must mean there's nothing to research?

There is a mountain of research that was conducted with no political, religious or social agenda and that was peer reviewd that found that children of same sex parents did as well in all areas as other children. If you say please I will share it with you.

peer review, smear review. that means absolutely nothing. Not a damn thing. stick that word back in the book you pulled it from.

That you for that brilliant and cogent analysis of the methods of empirical social research. No doubt that you come well credentialed. Now lets see how well you can refute the findings

findings of what?

If you have to ask it is useless to try to explain. Thank you for admitting that you cannot refute the findings of the PEER REVIEWED studies that I posted regarding children of gay parents

 

[Slyhunter]

That is quite an unhinged rant. What the hell do you mean by "my lifestyle"?? You don't know me and don't presume to. Discrimination in the name of religion is still discrimination. If a person is treated differently that another person based on characteristic, that is discrimination. Maybe there is not other baker that has what they want. Maybe there is no other baker at all. Maybe it is just an annoyance to go elsewhere. Think about how you would feel if it were you. People like you make me fucking crazy

I genuinly empathize with those who are victims of discrimination.

What I ask them to do is let freedom take priority to the greatest extent possible, and find a solution that preserves freedom above all else.

In the situation at hand, I am asking gay couples to let bigoted assholes have their liberty. I don't like it either, but there is a much more important primciple I wish to preserve. I am asking you to trust liberty and have faith in people.

It takes courage to put faith in people and trust that, for the most part, they will treat others with respect and dignity in the marketplace. Applying government force is the antithesis of faith in people and the enemy of liberty. Using force to get what you want allow others to use force to get what they want, until liberty is dead.

If gay couples would demonstrate their support for liberty and openly support the right of the bigot baker to refuse service, many, including the bigot baker, will appreciate it, and many bigots, including the baker, could have a change of heart and recognize their error.

It happened to me. I am living proof that liberty is reciprocated. Liberty is powerful.

That is rather idealistic and I'm not sure how realistic it is.

Ok I might be open to allowing bigoted shop owners discriminate, although it is against my principles. But where does it stop?

What about the bigoted employer who fires someone after seeing pictures of their same sex wedding on social media?

What about the bigoted land lord who wont rent that apartment to the gay couple that they really wanted?

What about the bigots who-right now in Texas- are pursuing litigation to get the City of Huston to stop providing employee benefits to spouses of a gay worker claiming that it goes beyond the intent of Obergefell?

Get the picture? If the Baker can discriminate, who then cannot?

The baker has to sell them a cake and would've if it were limited to that. What they can't do is dictate to him what art work he would put on the cake. Pick one already made or agree to limit it to what he is willing to do.

 

[jc456]

So what you're saying is that because no one is willing to pay for the research, and everyone's too afraid to DO the research because they don't want to be called "homophobic", that must mean there's nothing to research?

There is a mountain of research that was conducted with no political, religious or social agenda and that was peer reviewd that found that children of same sex parents did as well in all areas as other children. If you say please I will share it with you.

peer review, smear review. that means absolutely nothing. Not a damn thing. stick that word back in the book you pulled it from.

That you for that brilliant and cogent analysis of the methods of empirical social research. No doubt that you come well credentialed. Now lets see how well you can refute the findings

findings of what?

If you have to ask it is useless to try to explain. Thank you for admitting that you cannot refute the findings of the PEER REVIEWED studies that I posted regarding children of gay parents

I didn't read your peer review, I find peer review material useless in a discussion. peer means my way, and I don't follow anyone's way. Education leads individuals to use judgement, and I use mine daily. peer means shit to me.

 

[Pop23]

How about getting rid of protective classes altogether having them is discriminatory.

So who gets to discriminate? There’s only one propane company and one honey dipper that services where I live. Should they be able to discriminate? The only gas station? Grocery store?

It's a private business if they want to lose money by discrimination its their decision . I'm sure you are one of those with the "you didn't build that" mentality but no one has the right to tell private citizens how to run their own business certainly not the Fed. Nothing has ever been improved by the government getting involved.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

They are not concerned with losing that one customer, but that customer has no other option. I guess minorities just have to pump their own shit and grow their own food, right?

Cake is not essential to life. But this is funny in a way. The reason a Wedding Cake is Historically the centerpiece of a wedding is so the Bride and Groom is ensured fertility.

Nobody said it is essential to life. Why should one private business be allowed to legally discriminate and not another?

You really just pull shit out of your ass don’t you?

One of the first traditions began in Ancient Rome where bread was broken over the bride’s head to bring good fortune to the couple.[2]

Wedding cake was originally a luxury item, and a sign of celebration and social status. The bigger the cake, the higher the social standing. Wedding cakes in England and early America were traditionally fruit cakes, often topped with marzipan and icing with tiers, Cutting the cake was an important part of the reception. White icing was also a symbol of money and social importance in Victorian times, so a white cake was highly desired.[3] Today, many flavors and configurations are available in addition to the traditional all-white tiered cake.[4]

In Medieval England cakes were stacked as high as possible for the bride and groom to kiss over. A successful kiss meant they were guaranteed a prosperous life together.[2] From this the Croquembouche was created.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_cake

Out of my ass? It appears the cake is up your ass:

The history of the wedding cake

The history of the wedding cake
It hasn't always been flowers and ribbons. Once upon a time, rather than being eaten, cakes were thrown at the bride as a symbol of fertility, says Catherine Gee.

History of the Wedding Cake

Today’s wedding cake has evolved out of many traditions. It is believed that the wedding cake began in Ancient Rome where wheat bread was broken over the bride’s head symbolizing fertility and good fortune.

Then there is the Cake AND other Wedding celebrations, all historically ABOUT THE COUPLES ABILITY TO PROCREATE - FROM A FEMINIST WEBSITE!

Wedding Traditions that Want to Get You Pregnant

1. Getting Married in June: Marrying in June was a way to honor Juno, the Roman goddess of marriage and childbirth. Marrying in June also meant pregnant mom could still work the fields and babies born in warmer months were more likely to survive. To read more about why couples marry in June click here.

2. The Flower Girl and Ring Bearer: These little cherubs are miniature bobble heads of the bride and groom. The fact that they are children represents the newlyweds’ future youngsters, because, you know, they’re expected to look like mom and dad. Hence the identical uniform.

3. Flowers as Decoration: Flower bouquets, boutonnières and centerpieces are not just for décor. The Flower Girl throwing petals everywhere is sort of like magic fertility dust. Flowers are symbols for fertility and…the vagina. Just ask Georgia O’Keefe; she knows what I’m talking about. (I will also admit that flowers were also used as a way to mask everyone’s smell. Deodorant is a modern convenience, when people showered sparsely back in the day the flowers doubled as a B.O. cover up.)

4. Bridal Shower Ribbon Cutting Game: There’s a common bridal shower game where for every ribbon the bride breaks when opening her gifts – a child she shall have. I suppose one could interpret the broken ribbon as her hymen since it’s supposed to be ultimately about getting her pregnant. Wedding > Bride > Virgin > Hymen Breaking > Baby; cuz married sex is supposed to lead to an immediate conception, right? (Bleh.)

5. The Wedding Cake: The wedding cake is not just dessert, it’s a fortuitous sex symbol meant to produce many offspring. The cake dates back to ancient Rome. Ancient cakes baked symbolic fertility grains into an uninspiring carb used to bless the couple. A seventeenth-century French chef sweetened it into the towering confection we know today.

6. Cutting the Cake: That ancient Roman cake was broken over the virginal bride’s head by her husband. This represented her hymen being broken (by him) later that night. The crumbs that fell over her were like Tinker Bell’s dust but instead of blessing her with the power of flight, it was more like blessing her with fertility. Guests would clamber for the fallen floor crumbs so they could get their own prosperous good luck to take home. This is also why we now share the cake with wedding guests. This eventually evolved into the cake cutting performance we see today, which is more about sexual intimacy and nurturing in a weird Freudian way.

7. Putting Wedding Cake Under Your Pillow: Sounds like creating laundry for yourself, but this was a commonly practiced tradition at one time. Female guests would take a slice of wedding cake home, put it under their pillow and sleep over it. It was thought that doing so would bless them with the same fertility bestowed upon the bride. (Why they thought pillow cake would do this is a great mystery.) Letting guests take home a slice stems back to those ancient Roman floor crumbs guests wanted. It was a little slice of superstitious prosperity and fertility to take home. Nowadays, while some guests may make off with butter cream frosting, most just get little tchotchkes as a thank you.

8. Throwing Rice: Throwing rice holds the same meaning as the wedding cake and the flower girl throwing petals. Its purpose is to spread well wishes of prosperity and fertility on the couple. At this point you might be asking yourself – what’s with all this grain and fertility business? All types of grain from barley to rice to wheat translate to prosperity (i.e. wealth) all across the world both physically and metaphorically. Ancient civilizations relied heavily on good harvests, not just to survive but as a type of currency. When harvests experienced bad years, birth rates most likely dropped; hence why they are so correlated. And since women were limited to the home and were considered economically unviable, their value rested on their ability to produce children. Children were only legitimate if consummated in marriage and were part of intricate laws regarding inheritance and social status. It’s a complicated web of social values, but the foundation of it all is food’s nurturing power and it’s associated symbols.

THEN THERE IS MY FAVORITE!

9. The Open Bar: I know what you’re thinking, how could the open bar be guilty of trying to knock up the bride? Well, it’s not the open bar’s fault per se, but there is a historical precedence of booze in relation to fertility. One of the possible explanations for the term honeymoon comes from mead, the honey wine. Mead was drunk by the newlyweds because, like grain, honey was also seen as a fertility and prosperity symbol. It was drunk for typically one month, which was also the length of most honeymoons in Victorian times. It also thought to lower the inhibitions of any nervous newlywed virgins.

YOU GOT SOME SPLAININ TO DO LUCY!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As far as gay marriage, Individuals have the right of freedom of association without coercion. This is fundamental. Why do you want license? All that's doing is telling the government you aren't capable of running a houshold and managing a marriage/family without government oversight. People don't often think about the meaning of government license for what it actually is. They should.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

no it wasn't. it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists, can't stand your sorry asses.

I have a hot news flash for you. It has already been changed. It only a few regressive holdouts like you who are still prattling about it. Get over it and move on.

no it hasn't. so sorry.

So, same sex marriage is not legal nationwide? 70% of Americans do not approve of it ? OK My bad

 

[Rustic]

As far as gay marriage, Individuals have the right of freedom of association without coercion. This is fundamental. Why do you want license? All that's doing is telling the government you aren't capable of running a houshold and managing a marriage/family without government oversight. People don't often think about the meaning of government license for what it actually is. They should.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

The federal government needs to stay out of all personal matters... especially firearm ownership.

 

[Pop23]

As far as gay marriage, Individuals have the right of freedom of association without coercion. This is fundamental. Why do you want license? All that's doing is telling the government you aren't capable of running a houshold and managing a marriage/family without government oversight. People don't often think about the meaning of government license for what it actually is. They should.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

The two types are not equal in the first place, and the wedding cake (a symbol of the blessing of fertility upon the Bride and Groom) is, Ironically, the perfect thing to point this difference out.

Still blathering about that fertility horseshit I see. Give it a rest.

You are the idiots that want the symbolism of what YOU CAN'T DO at your wedding, not me Einstein.

 

[Rustic]

There is a mountain of research that was conducted with no political, religious or social agenda and that was peer reviewd that found that children of same sex parents did as well in all areas as other children. If you say please I will share it with you.

Peer review is just another word for the 'deeply-held view' test. Who gets to decide what views are deeply-held? Heck, deciding as such is the very model of discrimination.

You know, that's what the recent SCOTUS decided on the cake thing with. And they completely missed the mark in doing so. They used the deeply-held views test to make a decision. Again, who decides what views are deeply held? The courts and government are more discriminatory than any entity in existence.

Peer review is no different. I've never been a fan of peer review. Particularly in terms of social affairs. It's a political science.

As far as gay marriage, Individuals have the right of freedom of association without coercion. This is fundamental. Why do you want license? All that's doing is telling the government you aren't capable of running a houshold and managing a marriage/family without government oversight. People don't often think about the meaning of government license for what it actually is. They should.

There was a recent case out in the midwest with the school district where a lot of parents were upset with something the school was doing. They fought it for a while. The eventually had a big meeting about it and the school decided that because the parents had marriage licenses that theeir childrens' affairs and family function, by nature of license, were under the oersight of the state since the state granted them licens to marry and raise children upon their request for government oversight (license). And the school board won and got to keep doing what it was that the parents were objecting to because of that.

I forget precisely what it weas they were mad about and I forget where it was. I might look it up again.

That's how license works, brother. Be careful what you ask for. Because you'll get it. And what you're technically asking for is more of the same problem you already have. Except you're gonna seal the deal against yourself.

Again, you already have the right to feedom of association and the right to be let alone. It's a constitutional right.

General everyday discrimination is never going away. People are dicks. Work with it.

But government is the most discriminatory of all.

You're better off without 'license.'

That is quite a rant brother. You're kind of all over the map. Peer review, marriage discrimination, freedom of association. Get organized.

Peer Review = fanboys patting each other on the back in their safe space