Well, that is the only way to effect change any more, get them by the purse strings. Once you start costing the city or state revenue, they start making changes. But as I pointed out, when its a little mom and pop sort of place, all you end up doing is running them out of business and hurting their other costumers. If there's only one cake shop in town and you run them out, where do you get your cakes? Plus there's so many conventions around the country, losing one doesn't put a huge dent in things and they can always just move else where. Anthrocon started up in Albany NY and eventually moved to PA where it was in 3 or so different cities at different ends of that state.

I don't know how to really articulate this well enough, but encouraging people to act with more tolerance toward those who don't share the same sexuality isn't fairly equated with abortion, or terrorism. It's easy enough to argue about the case for freedom of speech and religious expression on its own merits without drawing all those groups together, as if there was some kind of link between them all that makes them one in the same. They aren't, you know they aren't, and you're smart enough to do better than that.

Its all a religious argument, was the point I was making there. If your religious views say homosexuality is wrong, if your religious views say abortion is wrong, if your religious views say eating pork is wrong; should the masses be allowed to force you to do those things? The government has a history of forcing people to do stuff (the draft, the trail of tears, ect.) but where do we draw the line? Do personal rights and beliefs get kicked to the curb when they hurt some ones feelings? You'd think that people who have been fighting for tolerance for so long would have a little tolerance for others.
Do I personally think its wrong to discriminate against any one for any reason? Yes, I think its is wrong. Do I think people should have the right to discriminate? Yes, its their business and thus their choice. If I down a apartment complex and some one I know is going to cause a disruption wants to rent a apartment, I should have the right to turn them away. Like say all of the current tenants are elderly folks and the people trying to rent from you are a group of college jocks, don't you think the noise and other activities they'll bring to the building will be disruptive to the other tenants? Or those elderly folks are very Christian and the new tenants are of a religion who practices animal sacrifice (which is legal you know) in the back yard, do you think that would be disruptive?
I guess its one of those 'big picture' things you hear about, what is best for the common good.

I don't think there will ever be laws drafted that force people to be homosexuals, or eat pork, or to have abortions in spite of their religious beliefs. Historically, there have been laws that have made it illegal to be homosexual, though - in essence, forcing people to be straight. And there are laws that are depressingly close to banning abortion in certain states. You could equally argue those laws have been in place because a large group of society was collectively butthurt about the lifestyle and choices of smaller demographics which have fewer rights. And, I think those groups have fought long and hard for what they already have, and can be forgiven for being pissed off when things start sliding backwards.

You're arguing for individual agency and freedom of choice, and I can respect that. But I absolutely feel that it is a bigger picture issue where the needs of individuals to make their own choices to discriminate who they offer their services to are outweighed by the needs of the current, and future generations for tolerance and equality.

And if you run a business, you have to take your customers on their merits. You wouldn't rent a flat out to someone you felt was going to disrupt the rest of the apartment complex, but in the end, who is responsible for the disruption? Is the behaviour of the new tenant genuinely disruptive (like animal sacrifice would be), or have their own values and lifestyle just made waves in the minds of the other residents when nothing really amiss has taken place? That's the way I view the whole wedding cake thing.

SJW? Seems an odd choice to blame for opposition. But, if you say so. Presumably you live nearby and can assess the landscape with accuracy and citations. Will you link you your peer-reviewed findings later? I quite enjoy reading those.

Should've called it "Religious Denial of Service" bill, but Freedom just sounds nicer, more appealing to the public~

Bible Bigots Bill rolls off the tongue better but would have been a harder sell. But it comes down to the same thing as any other law thats ever been passed on the state level, if you don't like it, move. People have moved to states with those death with dignity bills to allow them to have assisted suicides in cases of inoperable cancers and diseases. People have also moved to other states which allow gay marriage, so...

I'm finding it REALLY difficult to follow the position you're suggesting....

Let's look at the pieces of this:
WHO: A gay couple
WHAT: complaining that some cake place won't bake them a cake
WHERE: (Oregon)
WHEN: for their wedding
WHY: choose not to do a wedding cake ... on religious grounds

Alright... let's make this more generic....
WHO: (Two People Who Are About To Be Legally Married)
WHAT: (A Legally-Licensed Open-To-The-Public Company Refused To Serve Them In A Manner That Similar Other People Would Be Served In A Similar Situation)
WHERE: (A State In The United States of America That Recognizes & Endorses Same-Sax Marriage)
WHEN: (For A Legal Event)
WHY: (Based on Principles Not Considered Legally Valid By The State Of Oregon - See 'WHERE')

Is the Government allowed to force someone to do something they do not want to do? Yes... in certain situations not only can it, but it MUST do that to properly enforce Justice / The Law.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (1868) effectively says that all people must be treated equally by the law - that using the law unequally between different classes of people is inherently unfair. (Are there nuances to this? Certainly! But by-and-large, similar people in similar situations should be treated the same.)

That's why in 1957, when the Little Rock Nine were prevented from legally attending Little Rock Central High School by groups of segregationist protesters (who were supported by Governor Orval Faubus who mobilized part of the Arkansas National Guard to SUPPORT the protesters), President Eisenhower federalized the National Guard to, effectively, take them out of the hands of the governor. Once under control of the Guard, Eisenhower then used them to protect the nine students... obviously against the wishes of the governor.

There were still protesters and I'm sure Governor Faubus didn't like it one bit. But there's nothing stopping individuals from protesting, petitioning for a redress of grievances, even trying to enact new legislation of their own. But the problem is, and STILL is, unequal protection under the law is illegal and socially backward.

Nothing says you can't be a dick to people in your personal capacity. Happens all the time. But if you operate a business, legally sanctioned by the government, then you have to follow the rules. If you don't want to follow the rules (part of which is treating everyone equally under similar circumstances), then you have to accept the consequences of your actions.

Are the couple being told to stop being Christians? Nope - they can still do all of the things they think is right and good and just.... until it smacks up against societal pressures and that pesky 'Law' thing. The couple in question, as I recall, chose to shut down the company rather than be 'forced to comply with a law their religious sensibilities say they shouldn't follow'.

So they tried to be a school-yard bully, holding the ball over the heads and out of reach of the little guys (erm... girls...). The girls complained that the bully was... well... being a bully to the recess monitor. So now the ball is taken away, the bully was told to go sit in the corner and not play with everyone else 'till they wrote 500 times, "I will not be an asshat"... and the bully decided that they won't do anything but sit in the corner and yell and complain at everyone that they're not allowed to be a school-yard bully because they think they SHOULD be allowed to be one.....

Did I miss anything?

Come one down to Kansas.
I want you to DJ my wedding.
There's this hot 12 year old girl I want.
BTW: I'm 60
Oh... don't worry, it legal, I have the permission of a judge.
Will you come?


http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/.....sent-laws.html

Let's start here here: Would I attend such a service? As a personal choice, No I would not. I, personally, find the concept of someone of that age (your 12 year old example) morally repugnant, ethically questionable... even if legal.

Professionally - if the event was LEGAL, if I were a legally-certified and licensed professional without legal rationale for refusing, I do believe that I would have to.

BEAR IN MIND... using your example, this wedding would have to go through the following hurdles first:
1) The 12 year old girl would need to consent to the marriage
2) The girl's parents or a judge would need to consent to the marriage as well
3) The 60 year old man would need to consent to the marriage

So a MINIMUM of three levels would need to be vaulted first according to your link. That does not include various societal pressures that would need to be overcome.

Do I find that practice 'wrong'? Yes - as a personal, moral, ethical question I do. But the questions isn't how I feel about it, but what is legal.

If someone thinks the law is a BAD law, then they should see what they can do to change it.

...because I would be RIGHT THERE trying to do just that.

I commend you on being consistent.
However as a photographer, I think I'd have to let them take me to court before photographing such an event.
Kudos on not letting your morals get in the way of pedophilia.

...and in the eyes of the law, you would be the one in the wrong and would lose. If you have a problem with the law, do everything that you can to change it. Petition the lawmakers, challenge the law in social media, relocate or close your business. After all, isn't that what's happening in Indiana now? Companies are threatening to relocate out of the state, multi-million dollar renovation plans are being postponed, official endorsement of the state is being withheld by other states.... all the normal societal, economic and governmental pressures available to convince the lawmakers to repeal this horrible, divisive, unneeded and bigoted legislation.

And way to go with at LEAST three logical fallacies in that last line:
1) Ad Hom - attacking the character of the opponent to make them 'wrong' in the eyes of the viewers
2) False Analogy - You ARE aware that "pedophilia" does NOT equal "Child Molester", I would hope
3) Poisoning the Well - Throwing around the term "pedophilia" is a GREAT way to make people think my argument paints me as a horrible human being when not only is it unwarranted it's unneeded.
4) Straw Man - Do I support pedophilia? Do I support child molestation? Do you have any idea what my views on those two seperate topics are? Do you have any idea what levels of nuance I have regarding those topics at all? (Short answer is, "You do not.")

(*Thumbs up*)
Way to go, there.

As you stated, "pedophilia" does NOT equal "Child Molester".
Then why do you say I'm, "Poisoning the Well"?
Do you support pedophilia?
Well, you've already answered that by saying you'd supply music for a fee.

As far as the 'Ad Hom' attack. You invoked the "Little Rock Nine", their by equating anyone that apposes your view to be a raciest.

Speaking of racemism, you know why the government got into the 'Marriage License' biz to begin with? The blood test.

Premarital blood tests check both partners for venereal disease or rubella (measles). The tests may also disclose the presence of genetic disorders such as sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs disease.

Isn't it odd that the two genetic disorders named, one only effects black people and the other is primarily a Jewish one?

Look, I do NOT appose gay marriage. (period, end of statement)

You have asked for and received, understanding, tolerance, and equality.
Is it then too much to ask that the gay community turn around and show a little understanding and tolerance, in return?
I can think of no other way to engender more 'ill will' with the 96.5% of the population that is not gay, then what is being done to these small businesses.

As you stated, "pedophilia" does NOT equal "Child Molester".
Then why do you say I'm, "Poisoning the Well"?Because one post earlier you said...

Kudos on not letting your morals get in the way of pedophilia."Pedophilia" is a romantic and/or sexual attraction to prepubescent humans by those who are at least 16 years of age. This is a scientifically studied mental disorder, currently outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, aka the DSM-5.

Child Molestation is the act of performing sexual contact with a minor who is unable to give informed consent.

Are you aware of the difference between the two terms.... and do you think the collective social consciousness correctly separates the two terms? From the throw-away, over the shoulder tone used, I'm guessing you were implying that I support a heinous and deplorable crime vs. a diagnosed mental condition.

Do you support pedophilia?
Well, you've already answered that by saying you'd supply music for a fee.AH! Yes, see here? Exactly the point I was making. You're trying to paint me as a vile and despicable human instead of arguing the merits of the argument. "Bad Form, ol' chap!"

As far as the 'Ad Hom' attack. You invoked the "Little Rock Nine", their by equating anyone that apposes your view to be a raciest.Incorrect. I brought out the story of the Little Rock Nine because it demonstrates exactly the same type of situation; The students were legally allowed to be in that school, some members of the public objected based on arguments based on racism and bigotry (aka non-legal objections), and even had the support of the mayor's office (plus the protection of the military) - in direct opposition of Federal Law. The solution was for the Federal level of the government to intervene and enforce the law and protect the rights and safety of the students. I did not, at any time, suggest that anyone opposing my position was racist. I take GREAT exception to that suggestion and challenge you to show me exactly where I made such a connection.

Speaking of racemism, you know why the government got into the 'Marriage License' biz to begin with? The blood test.(*Blink*) ....excuse me?

Premarital blood tests check both partners for venereal disease or rubella (measles). The tests may also disclose the presence of genetic disorders such as sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs disease.First off, "Citation Requested, Please." However, a Google search for that exactly line brings the first link for me to http://www.nolo.com, a legal self-help website. Assuming for a moment that is where your information is coming from, I did I look there for what states 'require' blood tests ( http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope.....ood-29019.html ), and surprisingly I found VERY few that do: The District of Columbia, Montana (for women), New York does not, however they do have sickle cell testing for African-American & Hispanic applicants... and that's it.

Huh... out of the 50 states plus Washington D.C., only 2 states seem to have blood test requirements for marriage licenses, with a third offering screening for an at-risk population for a handful of specific diseases. That would seem to be a good idea - partners knowing each-other's medical situation to prevent otherwise unknown / unexpected medical complications later... especially if children are hoped for.

Isn't it odd that the two genetic disorders named, one only effects black people and the other is primarily a Jewish one?(^_o) How... "odd" for you to make specific mention of that kind of connection. Please tell me what the connection is to your position, please?

Look, I do NOT appose gay marriage. (period, end of statement)Opposition to marriage equality isn't the issue at hand, but I am very gratified to hear that!

You have asked for and received, understanding, tolerance, and equality.
Is it then too much to ask that the gay community turn around and show a little understanding and tolerance, in return?
I can think of no other way to engender more 'ill will' with the 96.5% of the population that is not gay, then what is being done to these small businesses.Argumentum ad populum... just because many people think a way does not make them right. The Law is The Law - and has been for some time. And the Law says that everyone is supposed to be treated equally and fairly, regardless of who they are.

...or are you of the opinion that Emancipation, the 14th Amendment, Women's Suffrage, the Civil Rights Act or Loving v. Virginia were bad law?

You've asserted that by merely mentioning pedophilia I'm painting you in a bad light.
I too assert that by merely mentioning the Little Rock Nine, you have painted anyone apposing as someone of this raciest ilk.

As to why I brought up the history of the marriage blood test.
Was to show that the Government approved license was used as a raciest instrument to keep black men from marring white women.
I don't think the Government has any business in any personal dealings of one person to another.

I'm starting to hear Sylvester Stallone from Judge Dredd every time you say, "THE LAW".

You are correct. It is "THE LAW".
But how is that going to change people's feelings when suddenly their wedding cake is cancelled because the bakery is now closed.
It is "THE LAW"
Or the woman that wanted the same cake her sister had at her wedding, but can no longer because the shop is closed.
It is "THE LAW"
Or the family that can't get the cake for grandpaw's birthday, like they did every year for the past 20, because the shop is now closed.
It is "THE LAW"
Hooray! You've ruined a business and put half a dozen people out of work.
It is "THE LAW"

You've asserted that by merely mentioning pedophilia I'm painting you in a bad light.Was that, or was that not, your intention, then? I would very much like to know.

I too assert that by merely mentioning the Little Rock Nine, you have painted anyone apposing as someone of this raciest ilk.Again, I never suggested that there was a link of racism to anyone opposing my position and I am STILL waiting for you to explain exactly how I made that connection.

I showed that there was a direct carbon-copy of the situations: private citizens opposed a legal law, the governor of said state ALSO opposed that law, used his position to back the protesters... and was overruled at the federal level to comply with the law. (That last part is still pending court battles.)

As to why I brought up the history of the marriage blood test.
Was to show that the Government approved license was used as a raciest instrument to keep black men from marring white women.And this is relevant now in what way? Additionally, as I mentioned before, "Citation Requested."

I don't think the Government has any business in any personal dealings of one person to another.The situation at question is not a personal one but one based in commerce. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant to the argument.

You are correct. It is "THE LAW".Now that we've finally established a common jumping-off point for this discussion....

But how is that going to change people's feelings when suddenly their wedding cake is cancelled because the bakery is now closed....
Or the woman that wanted the same cake her sister had at her wedding, but can no longer because the shop is closed....
Or the family that can't get the cake for grandpaw's birthday, like they did every year for the past 20, because the shop is now closed....
Hooray! You've ruined a business and put half a dozen people out of work.Alright then - WHICH bakery are we talking about now? Specifically? Because the situation you're talking about here, as a thought experiment, only ends in one way; POORLY.

See, the problem with this is a single one - The Law is an agreement that we make with the rest of society on how we will behave towards each other. If you go against that agreement, you're punished. If you don't like the agreement, you have avenues to follow up with to try to change those rules; the Redress of Grievances available through the governmental channels. You can choose to begrudgingly comply with the law, change your business model, relocate the company to somewhere more conducive to your way of thinking, sell the business to someone else who can then choose to follow the rules or not as THEY so chose, you could continue to work in opposition to the law which will get you punished over and over again.... or, as some have done, they can simply close the place down and yell sour grapes the whole time: "They won't let me use my holy book to justify discrimination, so I'm just taking my ball and going home!"

The FIRST amendment is there to prevent The Government from imposing ANY religious rules on the citizenry. This Law in Indiana is, EXPLICITLY, an exemption for people to claim bigotry and unfair treatment of people is OK because of religious belief.

This is Bad Law and will NOT survive upon contest.

Ok. I agree with you that everyone should follow the law.
Even if we think it is wrong.
No exceptions. The laws were passed by congress and are the law of the land.
So that means you agree that we need to round up all 11 million illegals that are breaking "THE LAW" by being in the country, and send them home.

...y'r REALLY gunna play that card? After I just said that there are ways to protest a law someone doesn't agree with. Even after I spelt out SEVERAL ways people could work towards changing a law or not needing to deal with the law? Are you even bothering to understand my positions and my points at all? Because it doesn't sound like it at all.

As far as the last part of your comment, that's a straw man, a non-sequiter and a red herring all wrapped up into one.

You know what IS on topic, however? My request for your materials and references. I am, YET AGAIN, requesting you to show me what information supports the claims you've made thus far:
1) " As far as the 'Ad Hom' attack. You invoked the "Little Rock Nine", their by equating anyone that apposes your view to be a raciest."
-- How is my drawing a clear parallel to this historical event equating my opponents as racist? I want you to either put up or apologize for suggesting that I did such a thing.

2) "Speaking of racemism, you know why the government got into the 'Marriage License' biz to begin with? The blood test. (Premarital blood tests check both partners for venereal disease or rubella (measles). The tests may also disclose the presence of genetic disorders such as sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs disease.) Isn't it odd that the two genetic disorders named, one only effects black people and the other is primarily a Jewish one?"
-- Where is your information regarding these blood tests from? Where is the information that the government was using these supposed tests for racists reasons? What are those reasons - to keep Blacks and Whites from marrying? Both of the disorders are genetic in origin, owing to a mutation of the genome - where is it stated that either can only affect one specific group, African-originating or Jewish people?

3) " Is it then too much to ask that the gay community turn around and show a little understanding and tolerance, in return?"
-- Are you familiar with the name "Matthew Shepard"? How much 'understanding and tolerance' should a 21 year old gay young man give when he's brutally beaten up and hung up ... in such a condition that someone mistook him to be a scarecrow? (Oh, By The Way... he was murdered; died from his injuries.)

You are making claims on the situation, some WILDLY fanciful ones that border on conspiracy theories, and have given me NOTHING to back it up. PLUS you've tried to paint me as condoning child rape / molestation & thinking anyone who opposes me is racist.... both with NOTHING but your own 'feelings' to go on. All the while I have refuted each and every point you've thrown at me.

Here are your choices at this point:
1) Give me your information. Show me your data. Explain to me exactly where your opinion comes from, Chapter And Verse, and give it to me so I can examine it for myself. Because, right now, I don;t think you have anything beyond an A.M. Coast To Coast level of detail to work off of right now.

2) Cry that I'm being; unfair, posting walls of text to confuse you or the readers, that you don't have to show me your information because it's either 'some secret that The Establishment would never accept because Super Secret Illuminati' or because 'it's all easily found information so why should I have to do your homework?'....

3) Or... you could just not bother posting any more on this. Just let this thread go and let the details sit in your head for a while... and then re-examine your position and feelings and thoughts on the matter at a later date.

If you want to win me over you need the more compelling, the more reasonable, the more logical argument supported by facts. I *CAN* be swayed IF you, or ANYONE, has the better argument supported by facts.

I REALLY suggest you should re-consider all the points we've gone through here... because it's all GOOD, specific, factual information.

Well first of all, unless you are directing other people here, or re-positing someplace, we are the only two seeing this.

Now for references:

A federal RFRA signed by President Clinton in 1993 shares language with Indiana and other states' bills, prohibiting the government from "substantially burdening" individuals' exercise of religion unless it is for a "compelling government interest" and is doing so in the least restrictive means.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.....is-boycotting/

Yes I know that Indiana's law is a tiny bit different from the federal RFDA, but their congress has already stated that they are planning on 'tweaking' the law.

(3) Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that ``Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.''. Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes that ``Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching''. Governments have the responsibility to protect the fundamental rights of their citizens and to pursue justice for all. Religious freedom is a fundamental right of every individual, regardless of race, sex, country, creed, or nationality, and should never be arbitrarily abridged by any government.

http://www.uscirf.gov/about-uscirf/.....ion-amendments


Native Americans have long fought to protect their religious freedom from repeated acts of governmental suppression
In 1994, a law signed by President Clinton exempted the religious use of peyote from federal and state controlled substance laws and prohibited discrimination against those who engage in the use of peyote for religious purposes.

http://www.civilrights.org/indigenous/religion/

As for the blood test. This was something I had heard about while living in Georgia. I can't not find anything on line.
So I apologize for that.

This is a publicly accessible journal post. Anyone could see this and judge for themselves what works and doesn't here.

I asked you for three specific pieces of information:
-- How is my drawing a clear parallel to this historical event equating my opponents as racist? I want you to either put up or apologize for suggesting that I did such a thing.

-- Where is your information regarding these blood tests from? Where is the information that the government was using these supposed tests for racists reasons? What are those reasons - to keep Blacks and Whites from marrying? Both of the disorders are genetic in origin, owing to a mutation of the genome - where is it stated that either can only affect one specific group, African-originating or Jewish people?

-- Are you familiar with the name "Matthew Shepard"? How much 'understanding and tolerance' should a 21 year old gay young man give when he's brutally beaten up and hung up ... in such a condition that someone mistook him to be a scarecrow? (Oh, By The Way... he was murdered; died from his injuries.)

The Blood-Test-Stuff you admit you have no information on... so good. Let's not use that argument until and unless you have something that actually has facts that you can hang a hat on, so-to-speak.

You tried to tarnish my character, accusing me of being racist. HOW? TELL ME!
Do you know about Matthew Shepard and how he was tortured and murdered for being gay? TELL ME!

We are NOT delving into anything more until and unless you prove that I AM a racist or apologize for suggesting that of me.... AND if you can tell me what think of Matthew Shepard's plight.

You have NOT proven any of your points over my objections. ANY of them! Right now, you should REALLY be seriously and honestly be considering if you are on the wrong side of the argument. Because right now nothing you have suggested has stood up to my objections.

"You tried to tarnish my character, accusing me of being racist. HOW? TELL ME!
Do you know about Matthew Shepard and how he was tortured and murdered for being gay? TELL ME!"

TELL ME! Where I accused you of being racist? TELL ME!

Yes I've heard about Matthew Shepard and how he was tortured and murdered for being gay. What does this have to do with this topic?

By bring up the Little Rock Nine, you are equating the Indiana law with the very bigoted laws of Jim Crow. So if anyone who supports this law, they are just as bad as the supporters of Jim Crow.

Now, let me ask you, who has been injured by this law?
Who had been discriminated against?
Is the governor of the state of Indiana standing in the door way of some bakery barring entry of anyone gay?

Yes I've heard about Matthew Shepard and how he was tortured and murdered for being gay. What does this have to do with this topic?Simple.. going by your comment before....
Is it then too much to ask that the gay community turn around and show a little understanding and tolerance, in return?
I can think of no other way to engender more 'ill will' with the 96.5% of the population that is not gay, then what is being done to these small businesses.So... should the law only be applied 4.5% regarding homicide? And what if young Mister Shepard was brought to a hospital in time to save his life... where the ER staff, ALL the staff, refused to help him on the ground that he was gay and saving his life would go against their closely held religious sensibilities?

Now, before you answer this, consider - there are hospitals, whole networks of them, ostensibly operated by the Catholic Church. In some communities they are the ONLY group providing emergency care. What then happens to young Mister Shepard?

That's right - He dies. Because of a religious exemption that says the Catholic Health System can legally refuse treatment to an individual who their religion says is 'an abomination'. (Leviticus 20:13)

By bring up the Little Rock Nine, you are equating the Indiana law with the very bigoted laws of Jim Crow. So if anyone who supports this law, they are just as bad as the supporters of Jim Crow.BLATANTLY UNTRUE. Re-Read what I said....
Is the Government allowed to force someone to do something they do not want to do? Yes... in certain situations not only can it, but it MUST do that to properly enforce Justice / The Law.That ENTIRE comparison between 1957's racism and 2015's bigotry is that THE GOVERNMENT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW!

You are on ZERO footing with your arguments - each and EVERY one is refuted. Each and EVERY one lays by the wayside a broken mess, snapped by history, facts and evidence.

Your assaults on my character, my opinions, my positions are show to be what they are - desperate attempts to characterize me as a supporter of child molestation and a racist bigot who thinks little to nothing of his fellow Man.

No, that's not right - You are outright saying you think I think anyone who disagrees with me is, themselves, a bigoted ass.

You want to continue this charade? Fine.. I'll play along and destroy EVERY FURTHER POINT until you tip Godwin's Law or you concede and quit.

Now, let me ask you, who has been injured by this law?SOCIETY.
Who had been discriminated against?The part of SOCIETY that this legislations says is now no longer worthy of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.... A Second Class of society... A La the Jim Crow laws you so glibly referenced before. You know what else the Jim Crow era brought us? The expression of "Separate but Equal". Separate but equal drinking fountains, separate but equal lunch counters in restaurants, separate but equal bakeries. (oh, wait... that's NOW under your suggestion......)
Is the governor of the state of Indiana standing in the door way of some bakery barring entry of anyone gay?With the stroke of a pen, that is EXACTLY what he's done - commandeered the Executive Branch of government to enact sectarian laws to allow bigots operating legally licensed open-to-the-public companies to circumvent the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection for ALL PEOPLE.

I now quote from the document itself....
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

...or is there something wrong with the idea that Everyone Should Be Treated Equally? Because that's what Indiana has done; If you are religious, you are above the law.

I have never said you are a bigot.

The question about the being a DJ for a 12 old's wedding, was to see if you would change your stance when something might be repugnant to you.
I even said: "I commend you on being consistent."
I wasn't desperate to do anything other then make you think.
You can use this very law that is on the books in 20 states to have said.
"It is against my morals to provide DJ services to this ceremony".

Are you actually saying that Matthew Shepard was denied Emergency Medical care? Or are you making a 'Straw Man' argument?
Because there are laws requiring ER care.

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.

https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and.....irect=/emtala/

And as you are fond of saying, if SOCIETY doesn't like a law, then lobby to change it.
Or, if someone is actually injured by this law, then take it to courts.
We've seen this several time in challenges to the ACA. Courts refusing to take up a case unless there's been an injured party.

Using the Little Rock Nine is once again playing the race card to shut down any apposing arguments.

You could have used the example of Executive Order 9066.

Executive Order 9066 authorized the removal of all persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast; however, it was signed before there were any facilities completed to house the displaced Japanese Americans. After the voluntary evacuation program failed to result in many families leaving the exclusion zone, the military took charge of the now-mandatory evacuation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern.....ternment_camps

See what a good job the government did in enforcing THE LAW.

I have never said you are a bigot.REALLY? How STRANGE! Let's see here....

bigot
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotNow that we have a working definition, let's see what you DID say.

Kudos on not letting your morals get in the way of pedophilia.
....
Do you support pedophilia?
Well, you've already answered that by saying you'd supply music for a fee.Hmm... You suggested that I supported child molestation by using the highly charged term, "pedophilia". Didn't call me a bigot here. 'course you didn't call me a child molester supporter either. You just highly suggested it.

As far as the 'Ad Hom' attack. You invoked the "Little Rock Nine", their by equating anyone that apposes your view to be a raciest.Hmmm... This looks very much like you're saying I would paint opposing people as being as bad as racists. Not quite the same thing, but still pretty underhanded.

Looks like you're right. I take it back. You never called me racist or a bigot or a supporter of child molestation.

You just STRONGLY and erroneously implied it.

Are you actually saying that Matthew Shepard was denied Emergency Medical care? Or are you making a 'Straw Man' argument?
Because there are laws requiring ER care.I posed a hypothetical situation, not a straw man, with a reasonable conclusion; someone brought into an ER in need of life-saving attention who does not get that attention is far more likely to die than not. I'm sure we can agree on that.

As to the law you're referencing, I counter THAT with the following from Indiana's new legislation.
( http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/.....ument-92bab197 )
Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.Hmmm... So unless Indiana's own legislature enacts new law, this overrides all other laws and statutes. Since this is the highest law-making branch in the state, that would seem to make sense.

OH! I'm sorry, we were talking about the hypothetical situation of the hospital withholding needed medical services based on this legislation....
Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following:
(1) State government....

Guess who oversees the hospitals and healthcare facilities in the state of Indiana?
Health Care Quality and Regulatory Commission
The ISDH Health Care Quality and Regulatory Commission is responsible for programs in the areas of health care facility licensing and certification, healthcare quality, vital records, and weights and measures.
http://www.in.gov/isdh/19041.htmMeaning that any hospital, or any other health care facility, licensed by the state, is subject to this law. Guess what named areas of health this covers....

Abortion Clinic Licensing Program
Hospital (general) Licensing and Certification Program
Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) Registry and Training Program
Qualified Medication Aide (QMA) Registry and Training Program
Registered Home Health Aide (HHA) Registry and Training Program
Comprehensive Care Facility (Nursing Homes) Licensing and Certification ProgramSo, let's see; ALL of these groups could, theoretically, refuse treatment to someone based on religious objections because they are all under the state's Dept of Health. Seems to me Indiana's law trumps "EMTALA"... or they just, you know.. failed to add that to the body of the law.

...which I find ODD because....
Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section:
(1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion.
(b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause.
© Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.Curious, wouldn't you think? Intentionally saying, "Just because we're making this law about religious practice doesn't mean we're working against the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment." If they were concerned enough about possible 1st Amendment challenges, why not add that Federal laws could override the legislation?

There's one possible reason; because then it would but-up against a 14th Amendment, "Equal Protection Clause" challenge.

And as you are fond of saying, if SOCIETY doesn't like a law, then lobby to change it.
Or, if someone is actually injured by this law, then take it to courts.(O_o) Did you NOT read what I said earlier?

The Law is an agreement that we make with the rest of society on how we will behave towards each other. If you go against that agreement, you're punished. If you don't like the agreement, you have avenues to follow up with to try to change those rules; the Redress of Grievances available through the governmental channels. You can choose to begrudgingly comply with the law, change your business model, relocate the company to somewhere more conducive to your way of thinking, sell the business to someone else who can then choose to follow the rules or not as THEY so chose, you could continue to work in opposition to the law which will get you punished over and over again.... or, as some have done, they can simply close the place down and yell sour grapes the whole time: "They won't let me use my holy book to justify discrimination, so I'm just taking my ball and going home!"

Seriously, dude.... I already covered that question and problem in detail.

We've seen this several time in challenges to the ACA. Courts refusing to take up a case unless there's been an injured party.And this means a law is good, how exactly? There are useless, superfluous, BAD laws on the books right now that say that Sharia Law is not allowed to be part of the judicial system in various areas; town, county, state courts. Those laws do nothing but gain attention for the people who've pushed for them, because this is NO mechanism for Sharia to become part of the system of judicial law in this country.

...but, now, this law in Indiana says that organizations are able to use that as a valid & legal excuse to withhold services.

...or is that only for Christian beliefs? Or Jewish Beliefs? Islamic ones? How about we just use all three and call it the Abrahamic Umbrella?

Oh, wait... who, then, gets to decide if the Pastafarians have legit standing under this law? Or the Wiccans? Or the Jedi? Or the Breatharians? (Yes, they are all legit groups.)

Using the Little Rock Nine is once again playing the race card to shut down any apposing arguments. Drawing parallels in history is exactly needed to prevent the cycle of pain repeating.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana

You could have used the example of Executive Order 9066.POOR choice, here. The government made bad law - as covered in the rest of the article regarding E.O.9066
In 1980, Jimmy Carter signed legislation to create the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC). The CWRIC was appointed to conduct an official governmental study of Executive Order 9066, related wartime orders, and their impact on Japanese Americans in the West and Alaska Natives in the Pribilof Islands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execut.....t-World_War_II

Guess what the commission concluded? Go ahead.. Guess... The report determined that the decision to incarcerate was based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership".So... a formal apology was issued, new checks were placed into the operations of government to prevent this from happening again, those people who were affected were assisted in bringing their lives back into order....

See what a good job the government did in enforcing THE LAW.Yes. They screwed it up. Then they did what they could to own up to a HUGE mistake and failure to it's citizens and tried to set things as well back as they could.

Now, there's one last thing I didn't respond to yet....

The question about the being a DJ for a 12 old's wedding, was to see if you would change your stance when something might be repugnant to you.I put the question on to you now; What if I'm right and you are wrong? What if you keep throwing more and more and more arguments with no backing that are refuted each and ever time....

At what point will you say, "Maybe I was wrong?"

Ok.. Lets try a different tact.

Would you agree that there is a certain amount of artistry in decorating a wedding cake? As well as flower arranging?
And that their is a small amount of talent in photography.
Enough so that people will seek out these folk and not just use a cake from Dairy Queen.
Is this a fair statement?

I put the question on to you now; What if I'm right and you are wrong? What if you keep throwing more and more and more arguments with no backing that are refuted each and ever time....

At what point will you say, "Maybe I was wrong?"
Go to "Answer".
Go directly to "Answer".
Do not pass the buck.
Do not collect 200 more points into a conversation that has been pounded to pulp.

Because were having a discussion.
You are correct, maybe I'm wrong.
But then again you might be also wrong.
Or at least able to see that things are not quite so 'black and white' as you seam to think.
So pretty please, answer my questions.

You know what? At this point you spent about 8.5 Kilobytes of text to try to make a point to me. Not a single point has stuck. I'm clocking in at nearly 3 TIMES your information, over 29Kilobytes, with facts, evidence, reason, reasonable examples, correct parallels....

Typically, this is where someone would call what you're doing a 'Gish Gallop'. Do you know what that is? I'm gunna guess that you don't.

Gish Gallop -
is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments — the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists) to overwhelm one's opponent.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
This entire time you have been bouncing from one item to another - trying to score a hit here or make a jab there... and since this is NOT a real-time medium, I can take the time to sit back, quote you, research what you said, and show you how, EACH AND EVERY TIME... you have been wrong at EVERY turn, over and over again, without fail by showing my research, by drawing parallels, by knowing my material and how to explain them.

And MOST importantly.... by not being afraid to honestly examine my own biases and feelings and perspectives on a question... and to draw conclusions that might be uncomfortable - and, when the time calls for it, to change my opinion if the facts conflict with my opinions.

From what I've seen so far, I highly doubt you can be so honest in your own position.

You, sir, are a BAD debater who has failed in this argument, showing yourself to be a colossal fountain of half truths, logical fallacies and half-baked concepts with no possible end game where you come out on top. According to your profile information, you're supposed to be about 60 years old. As someone 15 years your junior, I'm HIGHLY disappointed in your inability to handle the reality that you have failed to prove any logical point over and over and OVER again.

That's not an Ad Hom attack. That was a direct insult. There's a difference.

Now that THAT is all out of the way... let ME pose some questions:
1) You CLAIM you wanted me to examine my own opinions regarding a hypothetical 12 year old getting married to a 60 year old, but instead used that as a vehicle to insinuate that I support child molestation and / or rape. You owe me an apology.. a HUGE one. Why haven't you given one all throughout this exchange when I called you on it before? Do you not believe in accepting responsibilities for your own actions?

2) You claimed I was painting any opponents I might have as little more than racists simply by drawing parallels to an historic event with clear and demonstrated parallels regarding Civil Rights. Why have you not given me an apology regarding this when I have shown you, clearly, that the parallels do exist, outlined what they are, how they equate and why they are relevant, and yet never once said you, nor anyone else, was, themselves, racists?

3) Why have you not fought for any of your points so far? Each time you've tried to make a point, I shot it down with clearly defined information, facts, examples, evidence and proof. Is the problem that you simply have no desire to engage in a proper debate / discussion? Do you simply lack the courage of your convictions to fight for an idea... ANY idea? Are you just wanting to be an internet tough guy and argument troll hoping that I'll just throw up my hands in frustration and you can claim victory because you made me mad? Because, believe me... I am NOT going away. Some people get frustrated with situations like this. You and your 'arguments', right now, are SPORT for me.

4) I asked before, and I ask again - What about Emancipation, Women's Suffrage, The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, the Civil Rights Act..... are these all BAD laws, in your opinion?

5) Would you agree that the most basic purpose of Codified Law is to protect the weak from the tyranny of the majority? How is a Codified Law that says that the majority is allowed to treat the weak as naturally inferior based on imagined yardsticks anything other than 'wrong'?

6) What would you need to be shown to change your opinion on this matter? I'm serious! What do you need to be shown, have explained to you, be demonstrated to show you that you are on the total wrong side of this discussion, the ideas of These United States of America and of societal progress? Name it and I will, very likely, find and demonstrate it.


As of RIGHT now, your previous attempts to make any logical headway has been laughable. C'mon... PLEASE tell me you have SOME shred of decent debate skills in there.

OH! And fair warning. If you use any more logical fallacies, I will quote you, show you clearly what it is.... and maybe mock you for it.

Just thought you should be warned. After all, it's the fair thing to do. Not much fun facing an opponent that doesn't know what the stakes or rules are.

I'm just going to say it because I really feel this way.

You are having a battle of wits with a unarmed man Shujin.

...and who still doesn't seem to think I'm owed an apology still... Curious that.

That would take admitting that they may be wrong, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

So being gay is the same as being a pedophile?

Two people can play at the false equivalence game.

NO! NO! NO!

I NEVER said that.

Then why are you using pedophilia as an analogy?

If they are not the same thing they should not be treated the same and thus your analogy is not a good one.

Are you saying all DJ's are gay?
Because that is what I was talking about.
Whether or not a DJ, of any sexual orientation, could refuse to provide services to the example given.

Did you use an analogy where you used pedophilia as an example of why anti-discriminatory laws against gays are bad as if pedophilia and being gay were similar?

It's a yes or no question. And no, I'm not going to let you dodge it. Because I think you know damn well that pedophilia and being gay are not even remotely alike.

No, I do not think pedophilia and being gay are in any way similar.

Then why did you choose to use it as an analogy?

You're really really trying to avoid answering the question for some strange reason. (sarcastic)

I was trying to see if there was something that was so reprehensible that he'd refuse to provide DJ'ing service.
There was nothing said about the sexual orientation of said DJ.
He can be straight for all I know.

If you don't think being gay is the same as pedophilia, why do you think it's a good analogy to compare the two?

I think I know why you're refusing to answer the question. You know that they're not the same, not even close. And you know that you picked that analogy because you know pedophilia is something that disgusts most people.

Pedophilia, unlike being gay, has demonstrable negative effects on people. It's not even CLOSE to being gay. But you choose it because you were trying to get an emotional response.

It was not a comparison.
I was trying to find out if there was anything that an artists had the right to refuse to do?
Is there some theme that a cake decorator can refuse to put on a cake?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/.....ado-gay-rights

You literally just said that you " were trying to see if there was anything the artist had the right to do."

You were literally comparing it to pedophilia. I really fail to see how you can not understand this. Just because you say "Oh I didn't mean it that way." doesn't mean you were using an analogy to try to justify your point of view by comparing pedophilia and being gay.

And there is a lot of difference. Nobody has the right to force you do to anything illegal. Which pedophilia most certainly is.

Apparently in Kansas it legal to marry a 12 year old with a judges permission.

Kansas The age of consent is sixteen. With parental consent and/or the consent of a judge, males can marry at age fourteen and females at age twelve. Common law marriage is recognized.

http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/.....sent-laws.html

I was trying to find out if there was anything that an artists had the right to refuse to do?
If you are going to quote me, please keep it in context. Big difference in those two statements.

So you are saying, that as long as it is legal, I can make an artist put anything on a cake I wish?

"It's a yes or no question. And no, I'm not going to let you dodge it."

This isn't rocket science, dude. Either being gay and being a pedophile are analogous and therefore the comparison is valid or they're not and it's invalid. There's no "I'm just trying to find out what the limit is."

Either admit that the analogy is flawed or admit that they're the same. Back up your arguments, that's all I'm asking.

I'm not even touching on your argument that there are limits here. Nor I'm I even touching on the fact that a service industry can not legally discriminate against protected classes, which sexual orientation sadly is often not. I'm simply arguing that pedophilia and being gay are not the same thing and therefore shouldn't be treated the same and thus your argument is not a valid one.

You are right, I am wrong and should not have used the 12 year old's legal wedding. The comparison to pedophilia is invalid.

You've dodged the question again.

So you are saying, that as long as it is legal, I can make an artist put anything on a cake I wish?

Thank you, even tough I severely doubt that that is a sincere statement, that is what I wanted from the get go.. .well that and "I used that comparison in a blatant attempt to stir up emotions and cloud the issues." But I'll take what I can get.

Oh and apparently you didn't read everything I said, as I mentioned a while back that artists do have the ethical right to refuse stuff that isn't legal...

Again you change the meaning of what I said.
I asked:

So you are saying, that as long as it is legal, I can make an artist put anything on a cake I wish?

Which is a very different from, "that isn't legal".

So again, Please answer the question.

And there's another flawed analogy.

Putting something on a cake is not equal to denying service due to sexual orientation.

You are comparing apples to potatoes.. again.

Supplying a decorated cake is the service they are being asked to do.
Bakers don't go to the ceremony.
They make the cake to the specifications of whom ever is buying it, and it is picked up. Or at most they deliver it and leave.
The only reason you go to a particular baker is for their artistic ability.

Unless of course someone is just trolling them.

Please answer the question.

They are refusing to serve a wedding because the people getting married are gay. That has nothing to do with the cake itself. Your analogy is flawed.

I'm having a hard time separating the two...
So if a baker says, "Ok, I'll do the wedding, but I won't make a cake".
That's alright then?

If the baker has an Open To The Public Store Front...
... and they normally sell cakes to the public there...
... and they normally customize those cakes on request / for a fee...
... and they normally customize those cakes for wedding themes...
... and they decide that they will refuse to service someone that just walks in, requests a cake, to be customized, for a fee, for a wedding theme, because the baker thinks there is something wrong with the wedding based on reasoning that is not "legally recognized", ie. "Religious Objection", which could be same-sex (Christianity), one could be divorced therefore not eligible to be re-married (Christianity), could be legally / civilly divorced without a Get (Judaism)....

Yes - then they are performing an illegal act by refusing service to a class of people using religious bigotry as the excuse.

Really - didn't I cover this already?

Oh.. Right.. I did.
WHO: (Two People Who Are About To Be Legally Married)
WHAT: (A Legally-Licensed Open-To-The-Public Company Refused To Serve Them In A Manner That Similar Other People Would Be Served In A Similar Situation)
WHERE: (A State In The United States of America That Recognizes & Endorses Same-Sax Marriage)
WHEN: (For A Legal Event)
WHY: (Based on Principles Not Considered Legally Valid By The State Of Oregon - See 'WHERE')
Stop Using Arguments That Are Already Invalid.

Ahhh... finally we've got to where everyone agrees that the baker has to make the cake.
So any asshole with an on-line ministry and a Reverend in his name can come into any bakery, gay or other wise, and order a cake that says, "God Hates Gays".
And before you say, "Hate Speech", the US Supreme Court, in the Westboro Baptist church case, in an 8-to-1 decision, said this was protected free speech.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html

All of which brings me to the point I was trying to make two weeks ago.
Everyone needs to slow down and take a breath.
The sward of Equal Justice is two edged.
If you wipe out the grey areas and make everything black and white, this is what you'll get.
Jewish bakeries made to make Aryan Brotherhood cakes.
Black bakeries being mad to bake cakes with the confederate flags.
All protected speech. Nasty hateful speech.

Now I know you both have been thinking you've been talking to some 'right wing religious bigot' all this time.
Sorry to disappoint, but at worst I'm an agnostic.
I am employed by a gay man. (Whom I've been telling about our discussions, and he agrees with me.)
I'm furry so I have more gay friends then straight.
And I live with a gay, black, man, former Drag Queen.
Want proof?
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/6098972/
Enjoy your cake.

(*BLINK!*) BWAAAHAHAHAH!!! Oh.. oh, you are HILARIOUS! Really?
Ahhh... finally we've got to where everyone agrees that the baker has to make the cake.
Oh, man.. OH man.. this is delicious. You already shot yourself in the foot regarding this topic.
Come one down to Kansas.
I want you to DJ my wedding.
There's this hot 12 year old girl I want.
BTW: I'm 60
Oh... don't worry, it legal, I have the permission of a judge.
Will you come?
Professionally - if the event was LEGAL, if I were a legally-certified and licensed professional without legal rationale for refusing, I do believe that I would have to.
However as a photographer, I think I'd have to let them take me to court before photographing such an event.
Kudos on not letting your morals get in the way of pedophilia.One of our VERY FIRST EXCHANGES you said that you would rather be prosecuted rather than fulfil your legal obligation - as the photographer of an open to the public store front walk in business! A DJ would have to play music, a photographer would have to photograph and a baker would have to bake! I pointed that out in the VERY FIRST EXCHANGES! And you said you wouldn't do it. (*Golf Clamp*) BRAVO!

So any asshole with an on-line ministry and a Reverend in his name can come into any bakery, gay or other wise, and order a cake that says, "God Hates Gays".I am LAUGHING so hard over here.... you're killing me. STRAW MAN FALLACY! Build up a fake argument and tear it down to show that the fake argument that you created and presented is weak.

Is Reverend Asshole being refused a cake because he's a 'Reverend'? I would guess not. Could the company have Clearly Defined Rules about what messages they will not use, i.e. profane language? They might - and if they do, that's acceptable and legal because they are applying that rule equally to everyone, regardless as to who they are.

And before you say, "Hate Speech"....(*Shrug*) Never said it was and was never part of the conversation. Therefore I'm going to call this one a Red Herring fallacy. BOOOOO!!!

Everyone needs to slow down and take a breath.NOPE! You need better arguments. ANY Arguments, really, would be nice.

If you wipe out the grey areas and make everything black and white, this is what you'll get.*BZZZT!* Slippery Slope Fallacy Incoming! If THIS is done, then THAT will naturally have to happen... because REASONS!

Jewish bakeries made to make Aryan Brotherhood cakes.
Black bakeries being mad to bake cakes with the confederate flags.
All protected speech. Nasty hateful speech.NAILED IT! (*Ding!*)

Now I know you both have been thinking you've been talking to some 'right wing religious bigot' all this time.First off, don't tell us what we think. You have no idea what we think. Unless you're inside our heads, you get no say in that matter. BAD FORM!

Sorry to disappoint, but at worst I'm an agnostic.YOU are not a disappointment. Your arguments and your wilful refusal to pay attention to the constant rebuttals are. (I'm tempted to call this "Wilful Ignorance", but I can't prove that well enough.)

ADDITIONALLY your personal life is immaterial and not in any way germane to the topic at hand. Non Sequitur Fallacy!

Other people's opinion on the matter is immaterial. Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Because many think one way does not make the argument right.

I warned you. I really tried to warn you.

No, the court case ruled that the WBC's PROTESTS were protected speech. Considering that they keep well within the lines of the law during their protests it's NOT "hate speech" in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

and did you seriously just use the "I have a black friend that makes it OK." defense.

So lets say a group of KKK members walk into a black owned/run laundry mat and hand their robes to the owner to be cleaned. He should just smile, say "Yes sir, right away sir." and hop to it? A bunch of neo nazis are having a get together and feel like having it at a jew owned place, thats all cool right? Some Muslims feel that dogs are dirty animals and aren't allowed inside houses but if a bunch of blind folks with guide dogs come into their store, thats cool right?

You seem to have missed the part where I mentioned that the gay couple had been customer of the cake place for a while which is why they wanted them to make the cake for them. They hadn't been turned away, just deigned that one service. Ever been to a store with a sign by the bathroom that reads "Bathrooms for customers only?" Isn't that denial of service and bias? No shirt no shoes no service. Limit 4 per customer. There's any number of things stores do that limit or exclude people.

Also 'state's rights' has gone back and forth many times. Such as states that first started allowing gay marriage (which was only recognized in their state) or the legalization of pot.

And the school bully analogy only works so long as the little kid is forced to attend that school. Now imagine there's 4 schools in town and the kid is welcome to go to any of them they want to. Being a bully or excluding people for what ever reason is human nature and making laws against it doesn't solve that issue, it only masks it.

(I'm not going to discuss the first part as it has no relevant basis to the news story at hand. You can make equivocations and analogies if you like, but I'm not willing to deal with hypotheticals and possible slippery slopes. I'm just not the right brain for that.)

You seem to have missed the part where I mentioned that the gay couple had been customer of the cake place for a while which is why they wanted them to make the cake for them. They hadn't been turned away, just deigned that one service.And that refusal was "just" against the law.... or, possibly more appropriately, the rationale was not recognized as a legally valid one. I don't see how the business obeying the law before enters into it.

I agree that people should be allowed to serve whomever they wish, even if I don't agree with them. Frankly if I were those people I'd go to the Supreme Court to try and get this overruled. Cakes are expensive. So it's their loss as a business anyway if they choose not to serve someone. I'm sorry, but gay rights is turning into feminism and I just can't support that.

You know, I remember a story not too long ago about a restaurant that refused to let children into their establishment. That on the other hand was met with a lot of applause. Seems along the same lines to me.

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2013/09/20.....-to-dine-here/ there's actually a few places like that.

Also, I'd think people would rather encounter open discrimination than closed as I'd personally rather a place tell me I'm not welcome than mess with my food or deliberately give me shitty service to make me feel unwelcome.

They had a great line in the movie Crash where one of the black characters was complaining about getting shitty service in a restaurant 'because they were black', his friend pointed out that their waitress was also black. So he said some thing about how that makes it worse, that she gave them bad service because she didn't think blacks would tip her, so his friend asks if he left a tip and he said no because he wouldn't tip for that type of service.

It's ok to be a jerk as long as you're honest about it then? Is that what you're saying?

In most cases, yes. You should be who you are and not hold yourself back just because you might hurt some one's feelings. I'm usually brutally honest with people because they need to hear the truth.
Tell me, would you want to eat in a place where the people hated your guts? Some folks would say yes as they think they need to force themselves on people who don't like them just because. One year at anthrocon the Denny's next door to the hotel asked some fursuiters not to come to the place in suit as their tails were a trip hazard. They all went back to the hotel and told every one Denny's hates furries and that no furry was welcome there. So in typical PC style, every furry at the con marched to Denny's to demand service, which they of course got since they were welcome to start with.

So wait.. you're comparing racial discrimination and/or discrimination based on sexual orientation to being told that you can't wear a fursuit because of a physical hazard and you think they're even remotely similar?

And for that matter, how is someone even going to know that I"m bisexual by looking at me? And what if I'm not but wearing a shirt with a rainbow.. or a my little pony shirt and they just think I'm gay.. is it OK for them to discriminate then?

And now you are catching onto what the Bill was actually about instead of the hysteria the media is turning it into. The Bill is not about letting shop owners turn away every gay bi or lesb that comes through the door, its about allowing them to say they do not want to do business with gay weddings on the grounds of their religious beliefs. There's no way to tell (usually) if some one is gay if they just walk in and order a slice of pizza but when it comes to a wedding, it becomes pretty obvious pretty quick.

And when you make wedding cakes, weddings ARE your business...

And where does it end? If they have a religious objection to interracial marriage is that OK then? What if you think Catholics are the servants of the devil?

Honestly? I'd say yes, if you choose not to do business with some one for personal reasons, your the one who's not making money. Money is the only power any one has now a days so if some one doesn't like you, take it else where.

I'm calling it here.. Cisgendered, white, upper middle class, not over 30.

Am I correct that you've never experienced anything worse than possible "fursicution" in your life?

well lets see, does being bullied in high school count? physically attacked and robbed at work by some one twice me size? That work for you? I've been detained a couple times by cops for bull shit reasons, that count? I was ostracized by all of the girls in high school because my ex from 5th grade told them all I'd molested her (I found this out from one of them after graduation). I grew up in a house hold where both parents thought hitting me with what ever was handy was proper discipline. Oh, and I grew up in the age of corporal punishment so not only was I getting paddled (with a real paddle) by the principle at school but knew I'd get beat when I got home because they'd call me folks.

Please tell me of your 1st world injustices? Let me guess, some one looked at you funny when you were holding some ones hand of the same sex? your folks looked down on you when you came out to them? I'll take what ever petty emotion hurt you've suffered over the years of physical abuse I went through.

In other words "I'm a victim, that makes it OK for me to call for other people to be victimized."

I wish that hadn't happened to you, I know what most of that shit is like first hand. But you'd think that it'd cause empathy.

Oh and I love how you didn't bother to deny anything I claimed.. You just said "Yah, but I'm special." Guess what? Sadly there's a lot of abuse out there.

You know I love the bizarro world logic you folks use. You can call people out as straight white cis male (which I am, though I'm 39) as though that were a horrible thing to be with total impunity yet I, the so called ruling class, would be fire, forced into sensitivity training, and considered evil if I even mentioned the opposite about you. If I suggest some one is suffering from a mental disorder for being non-cis (which is was originally and still is classed as in some places) I'm being evil and not understanding gender issues. If I point out that many of the problems in the non-white communities are the fault of those community and not the result of white oppression, I'm obviously racist, despite the facts that prove I'm right along with research done by people of color that support those facts. If I say any thing about females I'm just some bitter sexist or some thing. If I attack any one who's not like me its instantly a hate crime and I go to prison for a lot longer than if any one attacks me because you can't be convicted of hating straight white males.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." ~ Voltaire
And I tell you what, if you think your life here is so horrible, I'd almost be willing to buy you a plane ticket and send you to a Muslim country for a week where you can wear a bright American flag colored shirt that says "I kiss boys" and you can tell the locals how bad you have it being who you are. Then if you survive to come back in a week, you can tell me all about how sensitive to your problems they were.

I never said being a straight cis white male is horrible.

The point was that Straight cis white males don't suffer from institutionalized discrimination. There is no "Bizarro logic" there at all. It's simply fact.

I also guessed "Young" because you pretty much lack any nuance about these things and insist that you are right and there's no other way to see it.

You also have been showing an amazing amount of ignorance of the laws but insisting you are right. And as to the quote there, here's one for you.

Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

You don't have to say it, I know your thinking it and I can tell from the way you pointed it out. Its the same attitude a woman would have when some guy turned her down and she said "What, are you gay?" or a feminist would have when she calls some guy a rape supporter. Its just that when groups like yourself do it, its not noticed as blatant bigotry because cis white males are the target of it and no one cares about us. And since EVERY group blames their problems in cis white males I'd have to call that institutionalize discrimination. I can't get a job cuz of whitey, I can't marry cuz of them breeders, I can't pretend to be a chick cuz of cissy, I can't be a CEO cuz of the patriarchy. Do you have any idea how old it gets being blamed for every single problem every single person has? Specially when I had nothing to do with it.

I'm of Irish decent and the Irish have gotten discriminated against since they first got to this country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment so you know I'm not making it up. I'm also part native american and I assume you know how much crap they went through. "But it was white people who did that to them" you'll cry and I'll ask but was it me? Did I personally do it? Was I the captain of the slave ships? Did I whip slaves? Have I lynched homosexuals? No. But I'm instantly grouped in with those people due to my race and sexual preferences. How is that any different than me saying "Your Muslim, you must be a terrorist then." It makes exactly the same amount of sense.

As for the young part, I spell things out bluntly so people get it. I don't use big fancy words and try to pretend I'm smarter than every one else.

And to your last comment, why is it every time a white male tries to defend himself with logic and facts, folks like yourself throw out the "Methinks thou dost protest too much" crap of "the black friend defense." Doing that degrades any minority friend any none minority has because "You're just the token friend, That white guy only hangs out with you to act like he's not racist." Do you have a straight friend? Do you only hang out with them to seem like your not hetrophobic? Because that MUST be the only reason your friends with them and if you respond and admit you have a straight friend your just defending yourself and saying that friendship is meaningless beside being a shield.

In other words "I don't have to say it, I've decided that for no other reason than you think I'm wrong and will say so that you're a bigot. (As if being told you're being silly on the internet is the same as having to drink at separate water fountains or something.) I will, as I have been doing this entire time, ignore any points you have made and claim myself as the victim, because you will not cave in."

Does that about sum it up?

Just because you don't discriminate personally doesn't mean you don't support a institution that does. You've proven that you do beyond a shadow of a doubt by continuously fighting for the "rights" of people to discriminate. How many hours have you put into trying to tell me I'm wrong for wanting equality and protection? And you even pulled that massive cliche "I'm not discriminatory because my friends are a minority."

You are of Irish descent? Fine when is the last time you were told to leave a place of business because you are Irish? YOU.. not your ancestors.. YOU personally. Because ironically your attempt to defend yourself is only proving MY point that YOU have no idea what it's like. This is the 21st century, where it's wrong to mistreat in Irishman... unless he happens to be gay.

I'm expecting a "yah, but..." here, so go ahead.

And to your claim of "Logic and facts." I would argue the logic and facts that you're using here, but I don't see any. I see a bunch of fallacies and hypothetical situations that don't apply mixed in with incorrect interpenetration of laws.


I don't hate you. Believe it or not I don't hate you. I think you're quite silly and I really hoped you'd listen the other viewpoints and consider them instead of just throwing the same thing up again and again and then claiming you win.

I really should have listened to my own saying, "Trying to find compassion from some people is like trying to move a brick wall with your forehead. The wall doesn't move and you wind up with a headache.

I'm sorry your childhood was shitty. I really am. As someone who has survived physical and emotional abuse as a child I know the scars it can leave.

But tell me, has there ever been a fountain to only be used by people who were beaten as a child?

You didn't contradict what I had to say, so I'm going to assume you ARE a cisgendered white young middle class male and really don't understand the advantages that that gives you in society.

Just because you were abused doesn't change WHAT SOCIETY thinks of you.

And your narcissism aside, that's the point. Just because YOU were beaten doesn't mean you have any idea what it's like to experience institutionalized discrimination.

Beaten locally or beaten at large, is it any less traumatic? Also, why is it folks like yourself can judge people like me by my gender, sexual orientation, race and age but if I do it, its totally unacceptable to do back to you? Judging people before you get to know them based on superficial things like age sex or race is pretty lame on either side and for you to do it to me makes me the victim of discrimination just as much as some one doing it to you. Think about the hypocrisy of your statements some time.

Lastly, one can hold political views and still be social/civil despite those views. The majority of my friends OL are gay, the only people I hang out with RL are a gay guy and a trans chick. I've hired blacks and females and pregnant black females when I managed a business as they were the best applicants at the time. While some of my views might not be PC and I'm anti-SJW, I'm not out there burning crosses or protesting or verbally abusing or raping any one RL. I'm just a man working two jobs and trying to stay out of trouble. Sure I'm not part of YOUR solution but neither am I part of the problem unless we repeal free speech that isn't helpful for minority groups. Why do I think this way? Because ask yourself this: Is there ANY THING that I could say or show you that would make you think "Wow, I never thought of it that way, he's right and I was wrong this whole time." Of course not. Nor is there any thing you could say or do to change my opinion. So then what reason in there to debate a subject? You either argue or preach to the choir of like minded folks.

I never said it wasn't less traumatic, I said it wasn't the same thing.

And you're pulling the "I have a black friend" defense?

Stay classy.

Just to answer your questions.

"should they also force pro-life doctors to proform abortions against their beliefs?"

Yes. A doctor's faith ends the moment his patient medical needs begin. The modern Hippocratic oath, after all, states "I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required". That's an oath that doctors take and it says right there that they will act for the benefit of the sick. (BTW, you can't be forced to give organs, blood, charity, or any other support to other people aside from your taxes, so it's ludicrous to think a woman should be forced to give support to a fetus. Even were the fetus a fully developed human, a woman would still have a right to terminate the pregnancy.)

"Should we force Muslim children in schools to eat pork if its on the lunch menu for the day?"

No. There's no other people unduly affected by the decision not to eat pork so they're free not to eat it if they want. They're choosing something for themselves, not forcing a choice to affect other people.


Basically, if you open a business, you have to accept that you'll sometimes work with people you don't 100% like. That's called professionalism. You can refuse service to those who are trying to cheat you or who abuse your policies, but you have to put up with people of other religions and political views.

"so it's ludicrous to think a woman should be forced to give support to a fetus."

To bad that wasn't true for men.

Yeah, but that's a separate issue. The 'force men to support kids they didn't intend to have' thing is equally BS. Stupid 'father is provider' crap.