Did the LGBT community pick the wrong fight.

In reply to madmallard:

When is getting no for an answer acceptable?

This one will be going on for awhile.

moparman76_69 wrote: http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

Well, that didn't take long. I would have bet on Utah rather than Montana though. I wonder how this will play out.

jj wrote: $135,000.00 Fine from the Oregon Dept of labor. Is this overstepping ? I don't agree with the law, but a $135k fine is ridiculous. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-bakery-wedding-cake-20150703-story.html

It is absurd, and you really need to be a dick to push that to the point of a fine (make your point and just go to another baker). Realistically I would hope this would not happen much though (combination of baker and couple who care that much).

When comparing the number of people affected by the previous situation (number of gays who want to get married) to the current issue (number of religious bakers / florists etc combined with a vindictive couple) I think the swing is still going to be a pretty big reduction in those "wronged".

I'm all for legalizing gay marriage, but you know what? If a cake company or whoever doesn't want to make your cake, so friggin' what. Suing because they won't make you a cake is the same level of douchiness as the earlier mentioned people who would sue a church that wouldn't wed them, because they just HAVE to have THAT church so the pictures are perfect.

Maybe my opnion is skewed, because my opinion for things that should be illegal boil down to "You hurtin' yourself? You hurtin' other people?" while my opinion on marriage is that you should be granted the right to sign paperwork in front of a duly appointed civil servant and everything else is, to pardon the expression, just icing on the cake.

In reply to Knurled:

Unfortunately for your feelings in this case, the argument that refusing service -is- 'hurtin other people' is derived from court rulings that infer, imagine, or otherwise created certain specific rights for SOME people more 'equal' than others, where none had been documented before. The protected classes therefore have all the legal weight to go after such injustices with wide latitude and impunity with little fear of retribution, either legally or morally.

the article said: Oregon law bars businesses from discriminating or refusing service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn away customers because of race, sex, disability, age or religion.

so if you are not acting as an agent belonging to any of these protected classes, you have fewer rights to demand services from other people than if you were.

People often dont want to acknowledge was a slippery slope it truly is in either direction of the argument.

In reply to madmallard:

"Some people are more equal than others" was the way things were when gay marriage was unrecognized.

And when it comes down to "you hurtin' other people?"... well, that is where courts, lawyers, and legislators come in to play, isn't it.

Personally I am looking at the big picture. The end-of-life rights and the other socially constructive rights that marriage confers are the major win. A ceremony and the things surrounding it are a ritual. A couple could do what my parents did and make their own damn cake.

Knurled wrote: "Some people are more equal than others" was the way things were when gay marriage was unrecognized.

yet, its still "that way" currently. this is what I was trying to point out, that the slippery slope has 2 sides, but people tend to only acknowledge the one that tilts away from themselves.

as this article about the baker now points out, these people are now entitled to use the lethal force of the state, the government, to compel others to comply against their wishes under threat of financial loss or other penalty. And their ability to do so derives EXCLUSIVELY from their status as a protected class.

The perspective largely depends upon whom people view to be the more persecuted party in this case.

Lemme just say, I don't where an answer lies, but I'm just pointing out that people who feel this was a victory for equality don't have to look very far to see things are not equal.

In reply to madmallard:

They'll never see it though. They don't care. I'm just glad my social media feeds have reverted back to Trump bashing.

Knurled wrote: I'm all for legalizing gay marriage, but you know what? If a cake company or whoever doesn't want to make your cake, so friggin' what. Suing because they won't make you a cake is the same level of douchiness as the earlier mentioned people who would sue a church that wouldn't wed them, because they just HAVE to have THAT church so the pictures are perfect. Maybe my opnion is skewed, because my opinion for things that should be illegal boil down to "You hurtin' yourself? You hurtin' other people?" while my opinion on marriage is that you should be granted the right to sign paperwork in front of a duly appointed civil servant and everything else is, to pardon the expression, just icing on the cake.

Our country had this argument decades ago. The answer was pretty resounding that separate is not equal.

I don't think we'll ever see churches being "forced" to conduct marriages if they don't want to … that gets into the separation question …

as for a business refusing to make the cake, because of religious beliefs, that is also on a very slippery slope

if that "right" is granted, it opens the door to refusal because it's an interracial marriage … or it's two people of a race that the store owner just doesn't like … not that that would come under the heading of religious beliefs .. but "nose of the camel under the tent edge" ….

as for store owner standing on religious principal, I won't believe them unless they also refuse to provide for divorced couples, along with a whole string of other "the Bible says they're damed" folk

wbjones wrote: as for store owner standing on religious principal, I won't believe them unless they also refuse to provide for divorced couples, along with a whole string of other "the Bible says they're damed" folk

No, no, no. Only YOUR sin is bad.

I find the restaurant Hooters to be an example ripe for its time in the news...

In reply to madmallard:

Nah, there's an equal thing known as Chip'n Dales.

ah ah ah, separate but not equal. There will be a demand based on protected class claims to be hired at some point.

In reply to madmallard:

How about we completely eliminate protected classes then?

you see, i'm torn. In one vein, you can make a point using a free speech example.

Free speech laws are meant to defend unpopular speech, because popular speech doesnt inherently need defending.

But does this concept transpose directly to anything else? In this case, so called protected classes of people?

In reply to Datsun1500:

I forgot about that, but that was not as specific as what I'm talking about, ie demanding a position that they were intentionally holding for women only. Not just being hired by the company at all.

In reply to Datsun1500:

I'm more worried about the B squad at hooters & tilted kilt......some people just shouldn't be employed there.

In reply to yamaha:

Hey, if they can have Ceasarian section night at the local nudie bar on Tuesday, there's room for everyone.

In reply to Appleseed:

LMAO!!!!

In reply to Appleseed:

Do they do it right on the stage? I imagine most doctors would find it tough to work with Whitesnake blaring in the background.

madmallard wrote: you see, i'm torn. In one vein, you can make a point using a free speech example. Free speech laws are meant to defend unpopular speech, because popular speech doesnt inherently need defending. But does this concept transpose directly to anything else? In this case, so called protected classes of people?

if we (by that I mean the royal we) weren't such shiny happy people we wouldn't need protected classes of people

Datsun1500 wrote: If a regular restaurant said they were only hiring men as waitstaff, they'd be sued. How can Hooters say we will hire you for this job, but not that one?

the job requirements read … incredible bod, and shapely boobs … when a man shows up that fits the description, I'm sure he'll get equal consideration …

you ever seen any wait staff at a Hooters that didn't fit the job description ?

You are white, heterosexual, and male. No one gives a E36 M3 about you.