Log in

View Full Version : Gay Marriage



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

eagle2
07-07-2015, 07:06 PM
As dancers, we object to dancing for certain customers. Some of us aren't fond of dancing for women. It's not sexist. We don't hate women. But rather, we don't feel comfortable performing a lap dance for a female customer. Is it discrimination? Perhaps. But I think every dancer here will defend her right to choose who to dance for. And will also defend her right to refuse to dance for a specific customer, under certain circumstances, such as drinking too much or smelling funky one day. How is that any different?


And since you're so hung up on "logical fallacies", your above statement is a "false analogy" or "false equivalence" as you say. You are trying to equate something that is completely routine for a business (a bakery baking a cake) with something that is very unpleasant or even possibly harmful (dancing for a drunk customer) for a dancer.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter. If you want to defend discrimination, then you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm still going to oppose it.

Djoser
07-07-2015, 07:13 PM
Remember when the mormons wouldn't let African-Americans in their congregassion. Then they got a lot of hate, and said JK NVM. It's okay that god blackened your skin for being neutral.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HSlbuli7HM

Holy fuck (no pun intended)

I want to try whatever drug Joseph Smith was on when he came up with this shit...

kirakonstantin
07-07-2015, 07:13 PM
Dancing for a drunk or disorderly customer can be unpleasant or even potentially harmful for a dancer. Baking a cake for a gay customer is exactly the same as baking a cake for a straight customer.

So, a dancer can refuse a lapdance, because it's unpleasant, but a religious person can't refuse a client, because it's unpleasant?

Really, this reminds me a lot of the time that Fred Phelps wanted to demonstrate. Everyone was SO mad! I wasn't. I welcomed them. I also launched a counter protest, where people would pledge a certain amount of money for each minute Phelps protested, with every penny being donated to a local LGBTQ advocacy group.

The WBC had the chance to make complete asses of themselves, for the whole world to see, while a worthwhile group got sorely needed funds. Had we turned them away, it'd make them martyrs. They never showed up, which was just as well.

Litigation, rather than bad publicity and letting nature take it's course, is going to do more harm than good. If allowed free expression, people will either build themselves up or do themselves in. A bakery who's nasty to same sex couples isn't going to get that far in Weird Portland, once word gets around. Suing them and putting them on the street makes them the sympathetic victims of gay bullies.

Looks like the bad PR campaigns, that used to work really well, are a thing of the past. Too bad. They were easy and so effective.

Trem: Calling a religious belief "evil" is exactly like calling same sex marriage "evil." Making legislation based on that opinion is something that shouldn't happen on either side. We just righted one wrong, by legalizing same sex marriage. Let's not replace it with another wrong.

Dirty Ernie
07-07-2015, 07:17 PM
Preventing the expression of evil religious beliefs is not bigotry. You don't get to claim "it's my religion" as an excuse for harming others. We need to make zero accommodations for bigots no matter what excuse they use.

Except it's not an excuse, it's the Constitutionally protected free expression of religion, which includes not just in worship, but observance. If you want to attack it from whether it is a sincerely held belief, fine, but that is something completely different.

p.s. I am not happy that I'm forced to argue a position I do not fully support, but there needs to be an accommodation reached here, maybe something like the establishment of sacramental weddings, which can be performed under the umbrella of a church exemption.

Dirty Ernie
07-07-2015, 07:19 PM
And since you're so hung up on "logical fallacies", your above statement is a "false analogy" or "false equivalence" as you say. You are trying to equate something that is completely routine for a business (a bakery baking a cake) with something that is very unpleasant or even possibly harmful (dancing for a drunk customer) for a dancer.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter. If you want to defend discrimination, then you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm still going to oppose it.

What if a dancer declines to dance for a gay couple?

kirakonstantin
07-07-2015, 07:20 PM
Except it's not an excuse, it's the Constitutionally protected free expression of religion, which includes not just in worship, but observance. If you want to attack it from whether it is a sincerely held belief, fine, but that is something completely different.

p.s. I am not happy that I'm forced to argue a position I do not fully support, but there needs to be an accommodation reached here, maybe something like the establishment of sacramental weddings, which can be performed under the umbrella of a church exemption.

I'm really not thrilled about this either. I'm not in support of the positions these businesses are taking. But, in order to protect my own Constitutional rights, I have no choice but to defend their right to have it.

Djoser
07-07-2015, 07:25 PM
Please, let's keep the debate civil. I could easily delete the thread as it is getting political, and that is verboten. There is also the 'Banishment to Games & Puzzles Option', which is tempting right now.

But I am leaving it open & in the Lounge, as it is so cool they finally allowed gay marriage.

I still think anyone who gets married is batshit crazy lol--but hey why not allow everyone equal opportunity to embrace the madness?

There is no way I am reading 6 pages of convoluted religious & legal theory right now. But a report has been made that things were getting tense, & I can see that the report was justified. So stay cool. And if anyone thinks it's getting out of hand again, please report it.

Kellydancer
07-07-2015, 07:39 PM
Two words, and I promise they're not strawman argument.

False. Equivalence.

Christians or anyone else with strongly held religious beliefs are not running homosexuals out of their businesses, hurling insults at them or denying them any and all service, on a day to day basis. They are declining to participate in a same sex wedding. If a same sex couple wanted a birthday cake, none of these businesses would object to serving them. What these business owners are doing is declining to service certain occasions. Regardless of the fact that I completely, totally disagree with their belief, I will absolutely defend their right to have it and to express it.

As dancers, we object to dancing for certain customers. Some of us aren't fond of dancing for women. It's not sexist. We don't hate women. But rather, we don't feel comfortable performing a lap dance for a female customer. Is it discrimination? Perhaps. But I think every dancer here will defend her right to choose who to dance for. And will also defend her right to refuse to dance for a specific customer, under certain circumstances, such as drinking too much or smelling funky one day. How is that any different?

I get that you don't like Christians very much and I have a sneaking suspicion that you're not fond of being told no. But one of the things I was taught at a very young age is that you won't always get what you want, exactly the way you want it.

I was once called a racist because I refused to send dancers to bad areas, which were mostly black. I sent dancers to nice areas, and some happened to be upper class black areas (doctors and such)
Dancers are not providing a need but a want and safety is important. I wouldn't have sent dancers to bad white areas either, it just happened to worst areas weren't white. Likewise while this never came up, I personally wouldn't dance for a lesbian party either, but if a dancer wanted to go I'd send her.

Kellydancer
07-07-2015, 07:45 PM
Preventing the expression of evil religious beliefs is not bigotry. You don't get to claim "it's my religion" as an excuse for harming others. We need to make zero accommodations for bigots no matter what excuse they use.

But here's the thing, some might consider something else bigotry. Not talking race but what about moral issues?

audritwo
07-07-2015, 08:49 PM
Can we get back to the purpose of this thread? Celebrating marriage equality!


http://i.imgur.com/LExrGGX.jpg

http://www.dallasnews.com/incoming/20150626-nm_26scotus_al05.jpg1.ece/BINARY/w595x467/NM_26SCOTUS_AL05.JPG

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/e5602c60f4b46ea80162def4925bf47640ac5be7/c=188-0-2948-2075&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/Phoenix/None/2014/10/17/635491625345144224-phxdc5-6hijei2hmjc1jfcftc33-original.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/12/files/2014/10/Utah.jpg

kirakonstantin
07-07-2015, 08:58 PM
I was once called a racist because I refused to send dancers to bad areas, which were mostly black. I sent dancers to nice areas, and some happened to be upper class black areas (doctors and such)
Dancers are not providing a need but a want and safety is important. I wouldn't have sent dancers to bad white areas either, it just happened to worst areas weren't white. Likewise while this never came up, I personally wouldn't dance for a lesbian party either, but if a dancer wanted to go I'd send her.

This is something that, as a society, we're going to have to grow into. I can't remember any other issue that was this complicated and involved so many legitimate, yet conflicting rights and viewpoints in my lifetime. There's going to be a lot of freaking out, a lot of legal wrangling and eventually things will settle into a hopefully happy medium. We've done it before and I'm sure we can do it again.

In the meantime, we need to do what's best for the most people possible, while impinging as few rights as possible.

Unfortunately, that's sounding like a pretty tall order right now.

Kellydancer
07-07-2015, 09:01 PM
This is something that, as a society, we're going to have to grow into. I can't remember any other issue that was this complicated and involved so many legitimate, yet conflicting rights and viewpoints in my lifetime. There's going to be a lot of freaking out, a lot of legal wrangling and eventually things will settle into a hopefully happy medium. We've done it before and I'm sure we can do it again.

In the meantime, we need to do what's best for the most people possible, while impinging as few rights as possible.

Unfortunately, that's sounding like a pretty tall order right now.

The problem are the extremists on both sides. One extreme are the bigots and the others are the anything goes people. Both groups hurt everyone.

kirakonstantin
07-07-2015, 09:03 PM
The problem are the extremists on both sides. One extreme are the bigots and the others are the anything goes people. Both groups hurt everyone.

Agreed. Extremism is almost universally destructive.

eagle2
07-08-2015, 05:05 PM
What if a dancer declines to dance for a gay couple?

Strip clubs cater to men, and I doubt there are many gay men going into strip clubs for dances.

kirakonstantin
07-08-2015, 05:08 PM
Strip clubs cater to men, and I doubt there are many gay men going into strip clubs for dances.

Strip clubs cater to everyone over the age of 18/21, depending on local ordinances.

eagle2
07-08-2015, 05:18 PM
Except it's not an excuse, it's the Constitutionally protected free expression of religion, which includes not just in worship, but observance. If you want to attack it from whether it is a sincerely held belief, fine, but that is something completely different.

It is just worship. It's always been accepted that employers are not required to respect the observances of their employees. I don't see why businesses should be any different. If there was a business that catered a lot of gay weddings and one of the employees refused to cook food for gay weddings because it was against his religious beliefs, the business could fire the employee, and no one would think twice about it. I once dated a woman who is an Orthodox Jew. I remember when she was looking for a job, she said she could not work in retail, because most retail businesses require that employees be willing to work on Saturdays. They even specified in their help-wanted ads that employees must be willing to work on Saturdays (since there were many Orthodox Jews living in the area). Nobody said anyone's "religious freedom" was being taken away.

eagle2
07-08-2015, 05:21 PM
Strip clubs cater to everyone over the age of 18/21, depending on local ordinances.

Some don't allow women in the club unless they're with a man.

kirakonstantin
07-08-2015, 05:31 PM
Some don't allow women in the club unless they're with a man.

Some clubs have Ladies Night promotions, do they actively court female patrons. None that I've ever heard of will refuse any and all women access. To be honest, clubs that have policies about unaccompanied women could have that easily changed by a lawsuit. In most clubs, lesbians and lesbian couples are welcome. Bisexual women are welcome.

Back to the original question, which is actually quite pertinent, what if a dancer declines to dance for a lesbian/ bisexual woman or couple?

audritwo
07-08-2015, 05:55 PM
I've never had a dancer turn me down for a dance anytime I've been to a club or been to party. If one ever does decline me, I'd shrug my shoulders and say okay. And move on to someone else. But if you don't want to because you're straight I get that. Like how I would never be offended that a straight camgirl wouldn't want to work with me.

kirakonstantin
07-08-2015, 06:07 PM
I've never had a dancer turn me down for a dance anytime I've been to a club or been to party. If one ever does decline me, I'd shrug my shoulders and say okay. And move on to someone else. But if you don't want to because you're straight I get that. Like how I would never be offended that a straight camgirl wouldn't want to work with me.

I wouldn't turn down a female customer, unless she's behaving badly. But some dancers would, for whatever reason. It's kind of the same situation as what's been debated, in our own business. If there were a lawsuit over it, I wonder how it would be ruled and whether dancers could be compelled to dance for certain customers.

On a side note... that'd be the shittiest dance ever, lol.

eagle2
07-08-2015, 06:26 PM
Some clubs have Ladies Night promotions, do they actively court female patrons. None that I've ever heard of will refuse any and all women access. To be honest, clubs that have policies about unaccompanied women could have that easily changed by a lawsuit. In most clubs, lesbians and lesbian couples are welcome. Bisexual women are welcome.

Back to the original question, which is actually quite pertinent, what if a dancer declines to dance for a lesbian/ bisexual woman or couple?

I doubt that any dancers decline to dance for someone just because she's a lesbian. If a dancer does decline to dance for a lesbian, she probably would have given the exact same response if that lesbian was a straight female. Same for men. If a polite, attractive gay man asked a dancer for a dance, I would bet most dancers would give him the same response as if he was straight.

kirakonstantin
07-08-2015, 06:29 PM
I doubt that any dancers decline to dance for someone just because she's a lesbian. If a dancer does decline to dance for a lesbian, she probably would have given the exact same response if that lesbian was a straight female. Same for men. If a polite, attractive gay man asked a dancer for a dance, I would bet most dancers would give him the same response as if he was straight.

Gender is also a protected class. And you're still skirting around answering the question.

HoolaTwister
07-08-2015, 06:31 PM
I doubt that any dancers decline to dance for someone just because she's a lesbian. If a dancer does decline to dance for a lesbian, she probably would have given the exact same response if that lesbian was a straight female. Same for men. If a polite, attractive gay man asked a dancer for a dance, I would bet most dancers would give him the same response as if he was straight.

I've worked with a girl who refused to dance for a butch couple. Absolutely refused and said they creeped her out because they were lesbians. So. It happens.

audritwo
07-08-2015, 06:35 PM
I think it has a lot to do with sexuality. Like I wouldn't expect a man who is an dancer too who only dances for women, dance for men if he didn't want to. Sex work is different then cupcakes.

eagle2
07-08-2015, 06:50 PM
Gender is also a protected class. And you're still skirting around answering the question.

Not completely. There are some exceptions. Some men sued Hooters for refusing to hire male servers and they lost in court. If some women sued the NFL for refusing to hire female players or coaches, I would bet they would loose in court too.

There is a very big difference between giving a dance to man and giving a dance to a woman, where there is a lot of close contact and the dancer is wearing next to nothing. There is no difference at all between baking a cake for a gay couple and baking a cake for a straight couple.

kirakonstantin
07-08-2015, 07:33 PM
I think it has a lot to do with sexuality. Like I wouldn't expect a man who is an dancer too who only dances for women, dance for men if he didn't want to. Sex work is different then cupcakes.

To a dancer, that is very true. To a Court, who likely doesn't have any experience on our end, it's a service. This is more theoretical wondering. I'm really just glad to live in a country where we can freely discuss it.

Kellydancer
07-08-2015, 08:46 PM
The fact is dancing does have a lot to do with sexuality and some were more comfortable than others about dancing for a same sex person. I'd expect this to be a bigger issue in higher contact clubs.

Speaking of homosexuality, changing it a bit because a recent issue came up that is bothering me. Anyway, people are making up that he is gay (only they are using the offensive f word for them). I do not believe he is gay but even if he is (they are mean because he is shy)it's his business. It's bothering me so I'm going to confront those in charge of the organization because it's hate mongering. Homophobic assholes piss me off.

eagle2
07-08-2015, 09:22 PM
I'm really just glad to live in a country where we can freely discuss it.

On this, I completely agree with you.

Kellydancer
07-08-2015, 09:49 PM
Eagle, what do you think of escorts and same sex? Let's say a straight escort gets a call for a lesbian and she turns it down is she wrong? There's no wrong answer, just something I thought of.

Dirty Ernie
07-08-2015, 10:10 PM
It is just worship. It's always been accepted that employers are not required to respect the observances of their employees. I don't see why businesses should be any different. If there was a business that catered a lot of gay weddings and one of the employees refused to cook food for gay weddings because it was against his religious beliefs, the business could fire the employee, and no one would think twice about it. I once dated a woman who is an Orthodox Jew. I remember when she was looking for a job, she said she could not work in retail, because most retail businesses require that employees be willing to work on Saturdays. They even specified in their help-wanted ads that employees must be willing to work on Saturdays (since there were many Orthodox Jews living in the area). Nobody said anyone's "religious freedom" was being taken away.

You're conflating employment law with Constitutional protections here, but I'm going to ignore that because you are making my point. The employer and employee both possess the ability to withdraw from the employment arrangement, either by dismissal or by quitting. Under your reasoning, the party providing the payment should be the exclusive decision maker for both parties as to whether the employment (or service) contract should go forward. Your friend was not forced to work on the Sabbath. She was well within her rights to remove herself from such a situation. You are insisting the bakers be denied any such option.

audritwo
07-08-2015, 10:35 PM
Eagle, what do you think of escorts and same sex? Let's say a straight escort gets a call for a lesbian and she turns it down is she wrong? There's no wrong answer, just something I thought of.

An escort can turn down anyone she wants to. I think sex work is a whole different ball game.

Kellydancer
07-08-2015, 11:36 PM
I do too, but I also think in some cases excluding someone is fine. I do website and advertising and I turn down jobs I find repulsive. For example I turn down anything that hurts animals and hate groups.

kirakonstantin
07-08-2015, 11:42 PM
So, how's this for a solution.

A wedding vendor doesn't want to do a same sex wedding and declines the customer's business. The same sex couple can file a complaint, but to satisfy that complaint, an impact summary is done. It determines the density of services within 15 square miles and the difficulty of securing an alternate vendor. If there's a significant burden in finding an comparable alternative, the offending business will be fined those costs.

In a large, liberal city, the impact would be that the couple call the next vendor on their list. In a smaller town with only one business providing a service, travel fees, time spent, shipping costs etc would be awarded.

For emotional damages, there would need to be proof that the business used slurs, denigrated the couple or engaged in hate speech. Otherwise, people shouldn't be so emotionally traumatized over being told no that they deserve financial compensation.

It's not a perfect solution and shouldn't be necessary, but maybe something like this would be a good stopgap measure until things level out. Same sex couples will have access to the services they need and religious business owners can follow their conscience without fear of losing their business.

Melonie
07-09-2015, 02:53 AM
^^^ those 'emotional damages' sure can add up ... from


(snip)"Oregon Official Fines Cake Bakers $135,000 For Refusing Service To Gay Couple, Issues Gag Order To Stop Them From Speaking About Christian Beliefs

In finalizing a preliminary hearing on Thursday, Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian ordered the owners of the bakery, Aaron and Melissa Klein, to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the lesbian couple they refused to serve.

The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the Oregon bakery that refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, have not only been ordered to pay more than $100,000 in emotional damages but have also had a gag order placed against them to prevent them from publicly speaking about how their Christian faith dictated their decision(snip)

(snip)In response to the Kleins speaking in an interview with Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, Avakian issued a gag order to force them to "cease and desist" from speaking publicly about how their Christian beliefs were the driving factor behind their decision to not bake cakes for same-sex weddings.

Avakian writes: "The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published ... any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations ... will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation," reports Breitbart.

The Kleins refused to take the fight lying down, issuing the following statement:

"This effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights," the Kleins wrote on their Facebook page. "According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.(snip)


This will undoubtedly lead to more litigation ...

HoolaTwister
07-09-2015, 04:26 AM
^^ A gag order to prevent her from speaking out about her beliefs?
What country am I living in????

Eric Stoner
07-09-2015, 07:39 AM
The Oregon case is an extreme. The First Amendment is supposed to place limits on the GOVERNMENT to prevent it from abridging ( inter alia ) speech. Thus the Oregon gag order is an outrage would almost certainly be overturned. Likewise forcing a priest, minister or rabbi to perform a gay wedding would violate the First Amendment.

Part of the problem is an old mistake the SCOTUS made when it determined that commercial speech was entitled to a lower level of protection than political advocacy and similar opining. Had it not done so that couple in Oregon would be on solid ground in refusing to participate in something they think is wrong , even abhorrent.

To those, like me, who either support gay marriage or at least couldn't care less : Does anyone support FORCING anyone to participate in or condone gay marriage ? What about the right to be left alone ? Is getting a wedding cake a fundamental right ? Afaik the Kleins are not refusing to sell gays any cake ? Just ones with two little grooms or two brides ) on the top. Why didn't the gay couple just order a cake and then add their own accoutrements later ? Wouldn't that have made everyone happy ? What about forcing parents of gay couples to attend gay weddings ? And more importantly requiring they bring a gift lol ? Where does this nonsense stop ?

It seems to me that this Oregon case is a classic case of overreach and I hope the Kleins keep fighting this. They ought to be able to go into Federal Court and get a stay. On the merits I think they have an excellent case.

Trem
07-09-2015, 08:58 AM
Not being discriminated against IS a fundamental right. Making a cake is not being forced to participate in a gay wedding any more than the guy who made the chairs is, you are not a fucking guest.

HoolaTwister
07-09-2015, 09:02 AM
Not being discriminated against IS a fundamental right. Making a cake is not being forced to participate in a gay wedding any more than the guy who made the chairs is, you are not a fucking guest.

Do you agree with the Oregon ruling and gag order?

Trem
07-09-2015, 09:05 AM
If you are talking about what actually happened instead of what right wing loons claimed happened, then yes i support it fully.


On July 2, Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries ruled that Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Gresham, Oregon, must pay $135,000 in damages to Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer. In 2013, Sweet Cakes refused to bake a cake for Rachel and Laurel's commitment ceremony, after which the couple filed an anti-discrimination complaint using the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which prohibits private businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

In the July 2 ruling, Bureau of Labor and Industries commissioner Brad Avakian found that the Kleins had discriminated against the couple on the basis of their sexual orientation. Additionally, Avakian ordered the Kleins to "cease and desist" from publishing or advertising that they would refuse services "of a place of public accommodation... against any person on account of sexual orientation." As reported in USA Today, "The Kleins will not be penalized for speaking about the issue on Christian television and radio programs."

Conservative media, led by an article in the far-right Daily Signal, falsely portrayed the "cease and desist" as a "gag order," implying that the Kleins are barred from discussing the case or their personal religious beliefs. This misinterpretation of the order was echoed by the National Review, Breitbart, Weekly Standard, The Daily Caller, FoxNews.com, and during a segment on the Fox News Channel.

HoolaTwister
07-09-2015, 09:38 AM
Oh waaaait so, they can only talk about it on "Christian TV and radio programs." What if they feel like talking about it on the local news? How is that not a gag order. Why is a judge allowed to tell anyone where and what people can say?

And I guess you answered my question, you're totally ok with the ruling.

Trem
07-09-2015, 09:40 AM
There is NO gag order, it is completely made up bullshit by right wing lunatics. A cease and desist order means they can't go right back to doing the same illegal thing they just got smacked down for, THAT IS ALL. The only thing they can't say is that they will continue to discriminate against people. You need to seriously start questioning the source when you read something that is so obviously bullshit as that. In case it is still not clear:

dditionally, Avakian ordered the Kleins to "cease and desist" from publishing or advertising that they would refuse services "of a place of public accommodation... against any person on account of sexual orientation." That is the relevant part.

HoolaTwister
07-09-2015, 09:42 AM
I guess I thought we were fighting for equality not special victim status, whining, demanding, bullying and revenge. Silly me.

Trem
07-09-2015, 09:43 AM
Then you should be glad equality won the day, and will continue to do so.

HoolaTwister
07-09-2015, 09:43 AM
There is NO gag order, it is completely made up bullshit by right wing lunatics. A cease and desist order means they can't go right back to doing the same illegal thing they just got smacked down for, THAT IS ALL. The only thing they can't say is that they will continue to discriminate against people. You need to seriously start questioning the source when you read something that is so obviously bullshit as that.

You're spinning it. Stop calling people with a different political view as yourself as "lunatics". It makes you look....intolerant.

HoolaTwister
07-09-2015, 09:44 AM
Then you should be glad equality won the day, and will continue to do so.

Equality certainly did not win the day! What planet do you live on?

Trem
07-09-2015, 09:46 AM
You're spinning it. Stop calling people with a different political view as yourself as "lunatics". It makes you look....intolerant.

How is quoting what actually happened spinning it? really, pointing out lies makes me intolerant? people who made up things with zero basis in fact or reality are not lunatics? The facts and the truth are that everything that article claimed is pure bullshit. You should be happy about it since it made you so angry.

HoolaTwister
07-09-2015, 09:48 AM
How is quoting what actually happened spinning it? really, pointing out lies makes me intolerant? people who made up things with zero basis in fact or reality are not lunatics? The facts and the truth are that everything that article claimed is pure bullshit. You should be happy about it since it made you so angry.

They are barred from freely speaking about the case anywhere but "Christian radio and TV." Got it? Good.

Trem
07-09-2015, 09:49 AM
Equality certainly did not win the day! What planet do you live on?

The planet where treating everyone equally means equality, you should join me. It's a much better place.

Trem
07-09-2015, 09:50 AM
They are barred from freely speaking about the case anywhere but "Christian radio and TV." Got it? Good.

They are not. I'm not sure what part you are having problems understanding. The only thing they are barred from doing is the thing that they got sued for in the first place. I thought this was extremely clear.

kirakonstantin
07-09-2015, 10:02 AM
Can we PLEASE stop with the epithets and slurs? I get that there are strong opinions here, but name calling does nothing to advance the discussion.

There is a lot wrong with the Sweet Cakes ruling. A lot. The fact that Basic Rights Oregon is involved, given their strong political Tues with the labor board commissioner... yeah, there's a lot wrong here.

There are two, very diametrically opposed freedoms clashing here and a unilateral decision favoring one right, while impinging another sets a dangerous precident. I lived in the Soviet Union long enough to see the effects of thought crime and what happens when one agenda is allowed to squash others. It's ugly.

I get that the couple is upset. I was pretty upset when my doctor refused appropriate medical treatment because I'm a sex worker. I didn't cry in bed for days and take months to recover. I found another doctor. I was bullied pretty horribly in my younger years. I dealt with it, no matter how bad it sucked. Ultimately, it could only affect me emotionally if I allowed it to.

This is a supposedly free society where everyone has a right to their beliefs, faith and opinion. As such, not everybody is going to agree with us and some will be vocal about it. While some cases indeed violate laws, it behooves us all to toughen up a little and invest in some big girl panties.

Had the Kliens run them out of their shop, screaming slurs at them... yeah... that's fucking disturbing. But, by all accounts, they were civily refused and Mr. Klien only elaborated on the reason for the refusal when the mother of one of the ladies returned to discuss it further. Was this a slight that really left one of them bedridden for days and sick with anguish for months? C'mon now. Nobody ever promised us that our feelings wouldn't get hurt in life and nobody deserves that kind of compensation for being told no, regardless of why. If they're getting so upset that they feel "mentally and emotionally raped, " there are some issues here that go way beyond wedding cake.