Gay Marriage and the Limits of 'Tradition'-

Except they would still have to pay inheritence tax. Why is it ok for straight married couples to be exempt but no one else who wishes to be married?

 

If you think tolerance is about putting up with people who have mutual goals but differing routes on how to get there, then you've learned nothing and don't understand what tolerance is. It's a shame that the left is so filled with hate that you've made politics so intolerant. Ironically, there was a time when the left knew and understood what tolerance was, but apparently that was merely a transactional relationship.

Tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

 

It is you who apparently has learned nothing and understands less. My point is that tolerance is a two way street. You demonstrate no tolerance so why should you expect to be afforded tolerance? By saying that the left is full of hate, you further demonstrate your inability to comprehend my point about how all intolerance is not equal and that our intolerance is morally justified and yours is not. Regarding your definition of tolerance, I am most certainly willing to tolerate you opinion. You are entitled to it and I realize that I can’t change it. However, behavior that seeks to subjugate and marginalize others; that seeks to deprive others of rights that you enjoy, I am most assuredly NOT tolerant of. Why should anyone be?

 

Sounds like your on the side of the photographer who didn't want to photograph a gay wedding and the baker who didn't want to make a make a cake for a gay wedding. Good. You're evolving.

 

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

Which serves to prove that your statement about me was a lie. Do you have a right to your own opinion? Absolutely. Does that require me to refrain from expressing my own opinion, including criticizing the things you say in expressing yours? Not in the least.

I do, however, think there's a difference between someone arguing against my rights, versus me daring to challenge their argument in defense of my rights. I don't think it's too hard to see who the intolerant one is in that equation.

 

Bull! I said I will tolerate your opinion. Not discriminatory BEHAVIOR.

 

Are you saying that I was keeping you from criticizing things that I said? Absurd. Please show where I was doing that.

Well I'm clearly more tolerant than you are, as I've demonstrated through this thread.

 

You want them to affirm your fantasy. You are forcing them to do something they find outside their values.


I don't want to force you or anyone to do anything. I don't have any list of things I want to force you to do. However you seem to have quite a list for everyone.

 

Nonsense. You simply support continued discrimination on a slightly different basis. Marriage for heterosexual and homosexual couples, seemingly for no other reason than the fact that they have sex, while closely related couples continue to be denied. Even in Rhode Island where it isn't against the law to have sexual relations with the closely related.

 

More bull! They are not being forced to do anything. They are free to find another line of work that does not involve serving the public if they can't serve everyone equally. It's not just about homosexuality. Where would you draw the line? If they can get away with turning away gays, why would others feel free to turn away anybody else who they find "outside their values"

 

Just because a person has the legal right to press charges against somebody for something illegal (like discrimination), it doesnt mean that they should. Im no legal expert, but I believe people should only sue if they have a very good reason, depending on the circumstances.

When that gay couple in Colorado sued Jack Phillips for refusing to bake a cake for their wedding, what were they gaining, other than punishing him and being spiteful? He doesnt bake any wedding cakes anymore. He baked no wedding cake for them. See? They gained nothing from suing him, other than causing him stress. It was a waste of time. Now, IF Jack Phillips was legally required to bake the cake for them, they wouldve gained something from pressing charges against him, and I could understand why they sued him.

 

Stress that he deserved for being a bigoted and hateful human being. And while they personally many not have gained much, humanity as a whole has by pointing out his bigotry, and restricting his ability to earn because of it. We, as a species, are better off now.

 

Jack Phillips doesnt hate gays. He simply didnt want to contribute to a celebration he viewed as sinful. I'm not asking you to agree with what he did, but using strawman arguements against him is a logical fallacy.

When the couple sued Jack Phillips, they werent doing it for the sake of showing off to the rest of humanity.

 

Clearly he does.

An option not available to him as a business open to the public.

Who cares? When he went into business, he agreed to follow the law. He didn't. And as a result, got what he deserved. History will view people like him as we now view apologists for slavery.

 

Just because he doesnt have that optional available to him and what he's doing is illegal, it doesnt mean he's hateful. Calling him hateful is a pure strawman.

Why didnt the gay couple just understand his reasons and decide to not press charges against him? They wouldnt have been prosecuted if they didnt press charges against him. It was their choice. I'm not denying what he did was illegal. But just BC somebody does something illegal, it doesnt mean that they deserve to get charges pressed against them.

 

How do you know he hates gays? He admitted he doesnt mind selling baked goods to gay customers. The wedding was an exception-because its a celebration of something he views as sinful. But the simple fact they were gay wasnt the reason he refused to sell them the cake. If a straight couple walked in to his store and asked him to bake a gay for their gay friends wedding, he probably wouldve refused too. I'm not arguing what he did was legal-I'm arguing that you calling him a hateful bigot is a strawman arguement. Even Progressive Patriot said that he doesnt think all Christians are hateful.

 

Why didn't the woman who was raped just decide not to press charges against her rapist? I mean, she just needs to understand his reasons, right??

 

But how do you know the gay couple sued him because they were upset he didnt sell them the cake? If that was the case, maybe I could understand the reason why they sued him and he was punished. But if they just went to a christian bakery as an excuse to sue and make some money, how was it really fair from a moral perspective what they did to Jack Phillips?

- - - Updated - - -

That's an appeal to emotion based fallacy. Youre comparing two totally different things for the sake of dramatic effect.

 

If you say so. Meanwhile, you will continue to lose this battle on every front, and a generation from now people who think as you do will be rightfully viewed as pariahs.

 

What's a pariah?

 

An (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). And the fact that you feel the need to ask that question means you need to go back to the kiddy pool where you belong.

 

It's weird that you don't understand how hateful and vindictive you sound. Yes, they are free to be fired, and free to be run out of business. Nice set of freedoms you got there, I'm just asking for tolerance but I can see that you are not capable of toleration. You've built up too much hate over the years to let it go. You want it aimed at someone.

 

He had baked cakes for 40 years. Colorados special rights for those with alternative sexual orientation started in 2008.

 

'Nuff said.