Subway Sandwich.

All I can say is all those gayhadists deserve their day in court to lose half their stuff. Serves em right.

 

I see...so by disagreeing with the definition you have..they redefine the concept completely.

Kinda full of yourself ain't 'ya'?

 

no it's not like that, the baker sells wedding cakes, they want exactly what the baker is selling

now if they wanted the baker to bake beer battered shrimp and the baker did not sell that, then the baker would not have to as they do not sell that to anyone

.

 

I'm having a hard time seeing how this analogy fits. Clearly, if Subway has all the ingredients and routinely makes custom sandwiches for customers, that "the guy in front" shouldn't be allowed to order whatever combination he wants?

 

The debate here is basically between those who feel that sexual orientation is a private matter irrelevant to daily life and other people, and those who feel that sexual orientation is a Really Big Deal and represents a genuine threat to the American value system.

To this second group, just SERVING a subway sandwich to a gay person is the first step down the slippery slope to being forced into gay sex at gunpoint.

 

Go ahead and hate or fear Gay people.
Go ahead an hate/Fear black people.
Arab...Asian...Mexican..whatever, that is your right in this country.

It is not your right to show this hatred in your daily life when in a position of serving the public....we refer to this as discrimination and have laws against it.

 

I thought we are talking about Sandwiches?

 

Subway does not have Shwarmas, nor are they Halal. So no they cannot make any combination he wants.
This analogy, is like asking people to change the definition of what marriage is. Marriage used to be between one man and one women, and 99% of people in this world accepted this, but 1% decided hell no Marriage will be whatever the hell we want it to be. So yes its like patron going into Subway and forcing them to change what a sandwich is, and forcing them to make it, using power of federal government.

 

A man and a woman can still marry, their situation has not changed a bit. So marriage hasn't changed. It has become a little more inclusive, but the institution itself is the same as ever. So exactly what is the problem? That other people now have the same right you have, and you just can't STAND the equality?

 

That's exactly why this is a flawed analogy. Subway is physically incapable of making halal shwarmas with their existing resources. A courthouse is physically capable of marrying a gay couple in exactly the same way that they are capable of marrying a straight couple.

Ever heard of an "appeal to tradition fallacy"?
Marriage also used to be illegal between people of different races. Does that tradition mean it was right?

 

Exactly right. I've been married for just over 19 years, and my marriage isn't impacted at all by the fact that gay folks can marry.

 

That was not a tradition, it was only that way for a short period of time in a very small percentage of the world. Yet marriage between a man and a woman of any race has been the only worldwide accepted tradition across religions, nations, continents.

 

Traditions change. Old traditions are replaced with new ones. Society changes & evolves. This just another example of those changes and evolution.

 

1. Societal changes is not always good. Ask the Romans.
2. Evolution? Can you give more detail about what you mean?
3. Some older traditions are better then new ones, and visa versa, change is not always good.

 

No, polygamy was rampant in places from Asia to Africa to the King Solomon of the Old Testament who had 700 wives and 300 concubines....and that existed for centuries.

Also there is no evidence of marriage existing at all in Stone Age cultures of Europe under the Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon......pair-bond mating perhaps....but no formalized "wedding ceremony" nor any indication that men and women didn't have multiple partners.

- - - Updated - - -

Slavery was a "tradition" to 150 years ago...dating back 1000s of years before that.

- - - Updated - - -

What change in Roman tradition caused the fall of the Roman Empire....and show your work?

 

Yeah, they replaced their old multi-theisitic religion with Christianity. Debate continues to whether that was a smart move on their part.

Yep, once society was goat herders running around the desert and relied on a oral method of passing down history and tradition. Now we have cities, a written language to write down history and tradition, and the ability to think further than just a few days into the future.

Yeah, I love those old traditions that let me kill my children for dis-obeying me. Too bad society frowns on that now, really could've used it 10 years ago while raising teenagers. Thankfully I don't have to pony up a dowry anymore.

And yes, I'm being a wee bit snarky here.

 

Even if you were right about the tradition of marriage, it's still an "appeal to tradition" fallacy.
But, of course, you're wrong about marriage.

Same-sex marriages occurred as far back as the early Roman Empire.
Emperor Elagabalus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, as his husband. He also married an athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.

The Roman emperor Nero, was married to two other males on different occasions. The first was with one of Nero's own freedmen, Pythagoras, with whom Nero took the role of the bride. Later, as a groom, Nero married Sporus, in a very public ceremony with all the solemnities of matrimony. A friend gave the "bride" away as required by law. The marriage was celebrated in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies

Another example from medieval times: two men (Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz) in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain were married on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.

Civil unions have been commonplace for most of recent history. Your objection seems solely related to use of the term "marriage" - as you like to pretend this relates solely to a religious union. Of course, you're ignoring the fact that marriage predates your religious belief (ie: your religion doesn't "own" it) and also ignoring the fact that couples can be legally married without any involvement by any religious institution.

 

Brilliant analogy!