U.S. Supreme Court rules same sex marriages legal.

Those of you who are in dire need of a blowjob (and you know who you are)...
GIT 'ER DONE...

I find that blowjobs pretty much solve all arguing... Originally Posted by Prolongus

Should be proud of yourself, you started it....

I'm about as conservative as you can get, but I have no problem with gay marriage, despite the "slippery slope" arguments. It's difficult enough to find someone who is compatible enough to share your life with, and what gender you choose to share your bed with is none of my business.

What I DO have a problem with is government actions that force people who do object to gay marriage to provide services (like catering, photography, etc.) to them. When the government can force you to hire people you don't want to; to provide services to people you don't want to; and to provide health services that you're morally opposed to, it's getting a little much for me.

And what happened to State's Rights? Trampled under Federalist lawmakers and Supreme Court activism. I'm not sure how to turn it around, but I'm certainly willing to vote for someone who's willing to try. Originally Posted by Wheretonow

If, as you have claimed, you have no "problem" with gay marriage, then legally speaking, you have to acknowledge that gay married couples are as equal as heterosexually married couples, thus they should be equally protected under the laws.

Now try to follow me on this one. There are people amongst us who do object to interracial marriage. Does that objection afford them the right to discriminate against interracial married couples? And you know how the rest goes....

When you use the term "Federalist lawmakers," no way you are referring to the Congress as of today. The only "Federalist Congress" I could come up with was the one that "tyrannically" shoved the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments upon the defeated South. That is sad, because it's bigotry at its extreme, Professor Wheretonow....

REALLY? Ever hear of freedom of association? What if a dirty and smelly person comes into your restaurant? Are you required to serve him? Originally Posted by Wheretonow

Do you mean "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," since I haven't seen the right of "association" ever being specified under the Constitution. But please follow me again.... What if a gay couple (neither dirty nor smelly) come into your restaurant? Are you required to serve them?

And saying "a gay wedding cake is the same as a straight wedding cake" is like saying the ISIS flag is the same as the American flag. You apparently don't see the difference, but many people do. Originally Posted by Wheretonow

Actually Walmart did make this one cake....

I'm not condoning.... But you are well aware that ISIS is a known terrorist organization. Any attempt to insinuate that gay cuoples are as "abhorrent" as ISIS is quite despicable. Agreed, Professor?

Should be proud of yourself, you started it.... Originally Posted by andymarksman

Actually nope, I didn't. Just threw out a topic. The bashing was started by others and not me.

Trampling on the rights of one group to convey alleged rights to another group shoud not be the American way. Originally Posted by Wheretonow

The problem is the "alleged" rights you so adamantly allege against are recognized and protected by the States, the Federal government, and now the Constitution.

Let's try again, where have you found any dealing with gays, be it business or personal, is strictly prohibited under "Christian belief?" Bible? Chapter and verse, please. Does Elane Photograghy also conduct Bible studies or wedding ceremonies during its business hours?

By the way, King James I is a gay, shall we start burning James Bibles now?

Actually nope, I didn't. Just threw out a topic. The bashing was started by others and not me. Originally Posted by Prolongus

But you can always have your BJ later, right?

But you can always have your BJ later, right? Originally Posted by andymarksman

Yep...BJs aren't just for breakfast.

The problem is the "alleged" rights you so adamantly allege against are recognized and protected by the States, the Federal government, and now the Constitution.

Let's try again, where have you found any dealing with gays, be it business or personal, is strictly prohibited under "Christian belief?" Bible? Chapter and verse, please. Does Elane Photograghy also conduct Bible studies or wedding ceremonies during its business hours?

By the way, King James I is a gay, shall we start burning James Bibles now? Originally Posted by andymarksman

In a truly free and diverse society, a business owner would be allowed to conduct business with those of his own choosing - the principle of "freedom of contract", which is further described below.

In the case of the bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple and the photographer who refused to photograph a gay wedding, it is possible that a case could be made for harm IF there were no other bakeries or photographers available to perform these services. In both cases the businesses were intentionally sought out because the gay parties knew they would refuse to do business with them. There were plenty of other businesses willing and able to perform the requested services, therefore the gay parties were not harmed in any way.

The only entities truly harmed were the businesses who lost revenue because of their beliefs. However this financial loss was one they were willing to incur.

"Classical contract theory rests upon three fundamental propositions. First, the exercise of freedom of contract between equal parties in markets of perfect competition is the key to individual welfare and the common good. Freedom of contract is defined as the power to decide whether to contract and to establish the terms of the bargain. "We have been proud of our 'freedom of contract,' confident that the maximum of social progress will result from encouragement of each man's initiative and ambition by giving him the right to use his economic power to the full. Second, enforcement of bargains as made protects the reasonable expectations of the parties that promises will be performed and contributes to certainty and stability in the marketplace. "It is a presupposition of the whole economic order that promises will be kept. Indeed, the whole matter goes deeper. The social order rests upon stability and predictability of conduct, of which keeping promises is a large item."'Thus, the bargain contract is the manifestation of liberty in the marketplace and the vehicle to facilitate the most efficient allocation of resources in the economic order. "Contract thus became the indispensable instrument of the enterpriser, enabling him to go about his affairs in a rational way." Finally, state action "is an evil, for it can only have for its object the regulation of the exercise of rights, and to regulate the exercise of a right is inevitably to limit it." Accordingly, it is the duty of government to exercise restraint and to protect the right of the individual to contract freely."

Let's try again, where have you found any dealing with gays, be it business or personal, is strictly prohibited under "Christian belief?" Bible? Chapter and verse, please. Originally Posted by andymarksman

As I have previously stated, I have no problem with gay marriage, but in answer to your question, the following is a Bible verse often quoted by Christians that they say indicates God's dislike for gays. There are several others, both in the Old and New Testiments, if you care to look them up.:

Romans 1:26-27King James Version (KJV)

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

In a truly free and diverse society, a business owner would be allowed to conduct business with those of his own choosing - the principle of "freedom of contract", which is further described below.

In the case of the bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple and the photographer who refused to photograph a gay wedding, it is possible that a case could be made for harm IF there were no other bakeries or photographers available to perform these services. In both cases the businesses were intentionally sought out because the gay parties knew they would refuse to do business with them. There were plenty of other businesses willing and able to perform the requested services, therefore the gay parties were not harmed in any way.

The only entities truly harmed were the businesses who lost revenue because of their beliefs. However this financial loss was one they were willing to incur.

"Classical contract theory rests upon three fundamental propositions. First, the exercise of freedom of contract between equal parties in markets of perfect competition is the key to individual welfare and the common good. Freedom of contract is defined as the power to decide whether to contract and to establish the terms of the bargain. "We have been proud of our 'freedom of contract,' confident that the maximum of social progress will result from encouragement of each man's initiative and ambition by giving him the right to use his economic power to the full. Second, enforcement of bargains as made protects the reasonable expectations of the parties that promises will be performed and contributes to certainty and stability in the marketplace. "It is a presupposition of the whole economic order that promises will be kept. Indeed, the whole matter goes deeper. The social order rests upon stability and predictability of conduct, of which keeping promises is a large item."'Thus, the bargain contract is the manifestation of liberty in the marketplace and the vehicle to facilitate the most efficient allocation of resources in the economic order. "Contract thus became the indispensable instrument of the enterpriser, enabling him to go about his affairs in a rational way." Finally, state action "is an evil, for it can only have for its object the regulation of the exercise of rights, and to regulate the exercise of a right is inevitably to limit it." Accordingly, it is the duty of government to exercise restraint and to protect the right of the individual to contract freely."

Originally Posted by Wheretonow

So using your logic, you must be ok with the owner of a McDonald's refusing service to a black person?

So using your logic, you must be ok with the owner of a McDonald's refusing service to a black person? Originally Posted by Luke Skywalker

in a truly free and diverse society, any business owner would be allowed to conduct or not conduct business with anyone of his choosing. We obviously don't live in such a society.

I figured that would be your view of freedom and diversity.

Freedom to deny service to a black person. Freedom for a family doctor that is Chrstian to deny service to someone with a Jewish last name. Freedom to discriminate based on gender, sexual preference, religion or ethnicity. There is a name for that....

Hitler shared that view of freedom and diversity. He went beyond your view, but before he did, in his mind that was freedom and diversity.

Minorities disagree with your views of freedom and diversity. So do I.

And im thankful the great country that is the US and the majority of its population disagrees with you.

Have a great day.

Quite a stretch from an individual business owner only serving those he wants to Nazi concentration camps, but it's not surprizing that you can't discern the difference.

By not serving everyone, an individual business owner loses profit, and if a sufficient number of people find his practices unsavory, he will eventually go out of business. Other businesses, who are willing to serve these people, will spring up.

A number of years ago my significant other went to a doctor to get birth control pills. He kindly told her he was a Catholic and did not believe in birth control. He then made her an appointment with another doctor at the clinic who gave her the medicine she sought. I'm suspecting your solution would have been to force the 1st doctor to prescribe the pills or get sued or fired. I kind of like the way it worked out.

I did not equate to nazi concentration camps. You distorted what i said. I can see why you became defensive. I said he went beyond your views, but before that he had the same views as yours, which is the freedom to discriminate.

My solution is that racism and discrimination of minorities is abhorrent and should be prosecuted under the law. Yes, you bet that is my vision and the majority of the American people.