Opponents. How has gay marriage negatively effected your life?

It's VERY simple - if people had unprotected sex and they were in a state of being able to reproduce, then it wouldn't take too long before pregnancy would be a CERTAINTY.

 

Yes, but this doesn't change the fact that they cannot create any procreative power between themselves.

You mean if they are both pregnant at the same time?

I agree.

 

As in, they feel that the ART involved would violate their religion! Simple!

If art was just a cover, then why was Jack Phillips more than happy to sell them anything in the store?

 

"These people." As in the same people who requested the same sex wedding cake?

 

Sigh...............yes the people who filed the lawsuit. Please just go read about it yourself instead of having to ask me every detail.

 

No, you have got that wrong. The couple were in the shop for the first time when they requested the cake. Not that it makes any difference.

 

Well, unless they are asexual.

Well my point is still valid isn't it? I said if two men enjoy having sex with eachother, there is nothing straight about them! That's surely correct. They are not 'straight', but rather 'asexual.'

Also, it's weird, because if someone is 'asexual' - which would seem to be the opposite of sexual - they are still being sexual if they are having sex.

Which issues?

 

The definition of SOME words are objective. Most of them. Do you agree?

Definitely subjective. What do you think?

 

But their wrong.

 

Sure, but the introduction of same sex marriage has not led to any issues in the above sectors as it has with wedding services providers.

Again, I don't accept that it's exclusively a topic relating to private business owner rights. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear - I'm not saying that without same sex marriage, these kind of situations would not arise, such as the Phillips case. I'm saying that they ADD to the list of things which negatively affect people. So you're argument that the problem can arise with more than just SSM, is really not a valid counter-argument.

 

What about a celebrant who is conducting the ceremony virtually? Are they participating?

Well because it was a setup, I thought that there was good chance that it was something that the person just came up with after thinking about the BEST way to get Phillips into trouble.

You CANNOT be serious! You've already acknowledged that there is an obvious connection between the original Phillips case and the transgender reveal cake request! Again, on what basis are you saying that he would "most likely" have had to deny a non-same sex marriage related request?

Sure, but you agree that the problem does not in fact lie with the "issue of whether the business owner should or should not have the right to refuse such business?"

Any reason why people might have mentioned what the cake is for only AFTER SSM was introduced?

Okay, so others would continue to make use of the business. That contradicts this:

Do you stand by your point that he "would have experienced JUST AS dramatic a drop in business?"

It absolutely was the stopping factor. Phillips turned away the couple without them specifically asking for decorations which express same sex marriage.

We're talking about lawsuits. Such cases would be totally and utterly irrelevant, because the business would not be legally affected. They are only legally affected if they're sued.

 

What the hell makes you think that you can speak for them?

 

You clearly do not know the FIRST THING about the Jack Phillips case!

 

People in the community. NOT the wedding guests!

You're assuming that there are not other reasons that these bakers refuse to do it

 

You seriously cannot see the rationale in a black person turning away someone like David Duke, former leader of KKK? Obviously you CAN!

 

.

 

Well this is the first time I've heard of it so how would I?

 

unless their wedding guests how would they know who made the cake?

I would absolutely love to hear a reason all these people supporting this, why?

As it stands nobody's been able to deliver anything but an incredibly flimsy excuse.

 

Since when was a wedding the same thing as a KKK event?

Further if you feel this way about weddings why in the hell would you ever be a pastry chef that specializes in wedding cakes?

 

No claim here that there are not asexuals within the priesthood, but very little change that all or even a majority are

Incorrect. You are still conflating attraction with action. One does not have to be sexually attracted to another in order to have sex with them. There can be motivations to have sex beyond sexual attraction.

Again, it's the difference between attraction and action. An lot of asexuals also lack a sex drive that is true. But there are also many who have a sex drive despite no one being sexually attractive to them.

SSM, discrimination, etc. If the issue is which letter comes first, then all those other issues must be resolved in order to have a need to focus on such a petty detail.

You should change your ID to conflator. Allow me to say this again. The definition of a word can be objective. Most, if not all, are, although many also have contextual componant where the same word has multiple meanings. Take Body for example:

Excerpts from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/body

As noted the definition can be and usually is objective. What it applies to can be subjective.

 

Knowledge.

 

You are still missing what I am saying. You are treating the business issues as if they are exclusively about SSM. SSM is simply another aspect where the issue of private business right can be applied to. Thus the issue is private business rights. SSM is an issue in and of itself. BY way of parallel, there are the issues of complications from large wounds and the dangers of heavy machinery. While heavy machinery can cause large wounds, the complications from large wounds should not be part of the discussion on the dangers of heavy machinery. Only the fact that the machinery cause the large wounds matters.

 

I would say they are, but that has no bearing on whether or not they consider themselves to be participating. Your and my opinions on what is or isn't participating in such a ceremony holds no bearing on how other people view it. Throwing up all kinds of what if's will not change the fact that there will be others who view participation differently than you.

And they went with something that was a possibility to come through his shop. It's not like they tried to trip him on a Vulcan Pon'Farr cake.

Because he did it. But also because most of those who are opposed to SSM are also opposed to transgenders and gays as a whole and would balk at doing anything that highlighted their existence. Selling a general cake does not create such focus. Now there are those out there who are worse than Phillips that want to be able to refuse anything simply because the customer is gay or trans or muslim or whatever. Phillips is actually pretty mild in comparison.

Again you are trying to conflate issues together. When it comes to what a business owner is allowed or not allowed to refuse a customer on, the issue is private business owner rights, regardless of whether it is applied to race, or SSM or hair color. Race and SSM are issues in their own right to be sure. But there is a difference between when something is an issue itself, and when another issue is being applied to it.

They didn't bother to have a ceremony until after that point? They hadn't met prior to SSM being made legal? The one only proposed the previous week? There are a slew of possible reason.

No they do not contradict because a drop in business means less business, not a complete stop to business. If he had (for simple numbers sake) 100 customers, and then this incident caused 60% of them to go away, then there would still be 40 customers. That's a dramatic drop from 100, but there are still customers.

You are still trying to put the overall issue into absolutes. I really can't help you any more in that area.

That's moving the goal posts. You may have been talking legally affected this whole time, but this is the first that you specifically mentioned it. All the rest of the time you've said affected, which would include all that affected his business, legal or otherwise.

 

I think that you are failing to see the forest for the trees.

 

Then stop pretending to know that he had nothing to offer the couple in his shop!