# SCOTUS ruled!!



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Same sex marriage is legal nationwide! 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ionwide-supreme-court-rules-n375551?cid=sm_fb


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

That is so great!


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

wish I could be here this weekend with beer and popcorn to watch this thread. It should be entertaining. Have a great weekend everyone


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I think this thread will be fine.

This is a wonderful ruling for families upholding their rights under the constitution. The majority of our country believes it should be this way as well.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

And 40 years from now this issue will be just as bitter and full of bile as abortion. Both sides handled it badly and this is another tear in the fabric of our society. The only thing worse than a sore loser is an arrogant winner and we've got both in spades.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

This whole country is in the handbasket to heck. And FAST.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Finally. I'm so thrilled for my gay friends...wonderful news.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

It went the only way it could've gone under the Constitution. I'm very happy for my gay friends. But I am also concerned for my friends who have sincerely held religious beliefs and whose constitutional rights have been and will be trampled. I hope we can all come to some sort of middleground.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Doesn't bother me until the State forces my Pastor to "wed" a same gender couple. Then it's on. They can do anything with their Civil Unions but Holy Matrimony should not be available to them.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Shine said:


> Doesn't bother me until the State forces my Pastor to "wed" a same gender couple. Then it's on. They can do anything with their Civil Unions but Holy Matrimony should not be available to them.


I wonder if most people that feel that way would lump divorced people into that pile that should not have "Holy Matrimony' available?

And if "Holy" is the word that many want to use, better check on those divorce rates for that 'Holy" rate.....


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

It's not good for the country, but it doesn't surprise me.

1. I don't think you do by court, what the Constitution says should be done by vote. Rights get trampled that way, not upheld.

2. I think it coarsens society, but we're on a downhill slide, anyway.

3. I think it opens up a Pandora's box of legal problems. Heterosexual people have been doing a bad job of marriage. I think the gays will have a much worse divorce rate, with all of its attending legal problems.

4. I think it's the first step of a very slippery slope.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MO_cows said:


> And 40 years from now this issue will be just as bitter and full of bile as abortion. Both sides handled it badly and this is another tear in the fabric of our society. The only thing worse than a sore loser is an arrogant winner and we've got both in spades.


Both sides handled it badly? The government has no right to define marriage. Period. Only one side was attempting to define it. The other side was just fighting for their right to ignore unconstitutional infringements on their personal liberty.

Get the government out of marriage. Period. Only way to go, and it shouldn't have been involved in the first place.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

joseph97297 said:


> I wonder if most people that feel that way would lump divorced people into that pile that should not have "Holy Matrimony' available?
> 
> And if "Holy" is the word that many want to use, better check on those divorce rates for that 'Holy" rate.....


I think you're confusing Christianity and Catholicism.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Jolly said:


> It's not good for the country, but it doesn't surprise me.
> 
> 1. I don't think you do by court, what the Constitution says should be done by vote. Rights get trampled that way, not upheld.
> 
> ...


1. Defining marriage at all was unconstitutional in the first place. Government involvement at all is an infringement of rights.

2. It coursens people who believe everyone else should live according to their religious views, yea.

3. No. I don't think you know many gays. I don't think you have anything to go on at all really. I don't think their "problems" will be any more or less significant than ours.

4. Of course you do. Because you don't agree with it, you don't understand it, and it scares you. Which is exactly what I tell people who want to ban guns. Don't let your fears stand in the way of everyone else's rights.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wiscto said:


> Both sides handled it badly? The government has no right to define marriage. Period. Only one side was attempting to define it. The other side was just fighting for their right to ignore unconstitutional infringements on their personal liberty.
> 
> Get the government out of marriage. Period. Only way to go, and it shouldn't have been involved in the first place.


I don't think they can get out of marriage. Too many laws and legal constructs use it.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

MO_cows said:


> And 40 years from now this issue will be just as bitter and full of bile as abortion. Both sides handled it badly and this is another tear in the fabric of our society. The only thing worse than a sore loser is an arrogant winner and we've got both in spades.


I think in 40 years it will be water under the bridge and there'll be no sore losers or arrogant winners remaining who matter. The people who object to it or rejoice in it the most now will be old fogeys then that nobody listens to anymore, or they'll be dead and gone. And close to two more generations of youngsters will have grown and moved on and gay marriage and abortions just won't mean the same things to the youngsters as it did for the old fogeys. The new generations ahead will do as they see fit for themselves and they'll have different issues of the day to deal with.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

I think it will take far, far less than 40 years.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

painterswife said:


> I don't think they can get out of marriage. Too many laws and legal constructs use it.


There are solutions to that though. All it really is, is a framework to determine sharing of property and power of attorney, things like that. Civil unions offer pretty much all of the same legal workings of marriage. 

The best part is, civil unions are not marriage. There is no implication of a sexually intimate relationship, there is no religious implication... But it still provides at least some protection from people from being pressed into a non-consensual arrangement because it still (or should) require witnesses and such. For legal purposes you can have the civil union, and be married in your own eyes.

Edit: I don't think 7thswan realizes that I'm saying the government would not officially recognize a Christian marriage, that Christians (and everyone else) need to recognize their own marriages and leave government out of it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> I don't think they can get out of marriage. Too many laws and legal constructs use it.


not to mention fees to get married or rights of the widow, widower etc,etc.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

wiscto said:


> *1. Defining marriage at all was unconstitutional in the first place. Government involvement at all is an infringement of rights.*
> 
> 2. It coursens people who believe everyone else should live according to their religious views, yea.
> 
> ...


 This, yes. The only correct ruling would be to strike down state sanctioned marriage in any form. But who's going to fight for that?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Fennick said:


> I think in 40 years it will be water under the bridge and there'll be no sore losers or arrogant winners remaining who matter. The people who object to it or rejoice in it the most now will be old fogeys then that nobody listens to anymore, or they'll be dead and gone. And close to two more generations of youngsters will have grown and moved on and gay marriage and abortions just won't mean the same things to the youngsters as it did for the old fogeys. The new generations ahead will do as they see fit for themselves and they'll have different issues of the day to deal with.



You will wish you had listened to those old fogeys when you see what the new generations are going to bring. The moral decay in this world right now is bringing a slew of problems with it that have never been faced before. Without a moral leader just look at how far our country has turned toward being a 3rd world country in just 6 1/2 years.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

gapeach said:


> You will wish you had listened to those old fogeys when you see what the new generations are going to bring. The moral decay in this world right now is bringing a slew of problems with it that have never been faced before. Without a moral leader just look at how far our country has turned toward being a 3rd world country in just 6 1/2 years.


You will wish you had spent less of your life worrying so much when the moral decay turns out not to be so bad. Don't you fear, gapeach, sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancies are on the way back down in most states where all us crazy liberals and libertarians aren't crazy enough to teach "abstinence only," and instead inform children about the health risks of sex and the difficulties of teen pregnancy. You know, those of us who take our education seriously. You'll notice that Illinois, New york, and other states with large or lots of large cities of high population density and terrible inner city school systems still have problems. You'll notice that the rest of us are doing better than the rest of you. 

http://www.livescience.com/45355-teen-pregnancy-rates-by-state.html
http://www.livescience.com/48100-sexually-transmitted-infections-50-states-map.html


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I seriously doubt that granting freedom and equality to all our citizens is going to lead to very much moral decay.


----------



## Marinea (Apr 15, 2011)

People talk about this decision leading to a decline in our society as if gay people haven't been living together for as long as there have been people on this planet. For heterosexuals, this ruling changes...nothing.

For gay people now allowed to legally wed, they no longer have to worry about so many things that :traditional" marrieds don't even think about- medical care decisions, retirement/social security benefits, inheritances, child guardianship. Just as important, they are now allowed to legally seal their love with a marriage.

Considering my demographic (over 50, hetero, married, living in the south, believer in God), I am sure my stance is surprising. My response- true love and commitment is so very hard to find. I feel in no way entitled to force "religious" beliefs on others, and tell them they cannot enjoy the same legal protections simply because their partner is the same sex as they are. 

If there are people here who have been waiting for this decision in order to move on with marriage, I am deeply happy for you, and wish you all the very best.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Marinea said:


> People talk about this decision leading to a decline in our society as if gay people haven't been living together for as long as there have been people on this planet. For heterosexuals, this ruling changes...nothing.
> 
> For gay people now allowed to legally wed, they no longer have to worry about so many things that :traditional" marrieds don't even think about- medical care decisions, retirement/social security benefits, inheritances, child guardianship. Just as important, they are now allowed to legally seal their love with a marriage.
> 
> ...


Post of infinity trumping all other post awards


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

wiscto said:


> You will wish you had spent less of your life worrying so much when the moral decay turns out not to be so bad. Don't you fear, gapeach, sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancies are on the way back down in most states where all us crazy liberals and libertarians aren't crazy enough to teach "abstinence only," and instead inform children about the health risks of sex and the difficulties of teen pregnancy. You know, those of us who take our education seriously. You'll notice that Illinois, New york, and other states with large or lots of large cities of high population density and terrible inner city school systems still have problems. You'll notice that the rest of us are doing better than the rest of you.
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/45355-teen-pregnancy-rates-by-state.html
> http://www.livescience.com/48100-sexually-transmitted-infections-50-states-map.html



You know as well as I do that you can find statistics to find your agenda. I wish all of you well. I think you are on the wrong route though. You need to teach your children that they should not be promiscuous no matter what kind of protection that they have. Morals are so important in life. As far the gays, I think that the unions were fine for them. I believe that God created Adam (a man) and Eve (a woman) as an example for what he intended for all of us if we were to marry. Even animals breed with a male and a female. This is the way that life was supposed to be. I do think you come on a little strong here. We are supposed to be able to express our own opinions and beliefs without getting a sermon.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gapeach said:


> You know as well as I do that you can find statistics to find your agenda. I wish all of you well. I think you are on the wrong route though. You need to teach your children that they should not be promiscuous no matter what kind of protection that they have. Morals are so important in life. As far the gays, I think that the unions were fine for them. I believe that God created Adam (a man) and Eve (a woman) as an example for what he intended for all of us if we were to marry. Even animals breed with a male and a female. This is the way that life was supposed to be. I do think you come on a little strong here. We are supposed to be able to express our own opinions and beliefs without getting a sermon.


It's a good thing not everyone believes that hogwash, huh? Even if they do, I truly hope their God is kind and loving like the one my kids believe in, and not the hateful thing you do.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's a good thing not everyone believes that hogwash, huh? Even if do, I truly hope their God is kind and loving like the one my kids believe in, and not the hateful thing you do.


What God do your children believe in? There is the Father, the son, and the holy ghost and they are the 3 in 1. I hope it is not the Sky Daddy that I just read about here. That is the most sacreligious thing I have ever heard of. 
God is kind and loving.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gapeach said:


> What God do your children believe in? There is the Father, the son, and the holy ghost and they are the 3 in 1. I hope it is not the Sky Daddy that I just read about here. That is the most sacreligious thing I have ever heard of.
> God is kind and loving.


Lots of not so not so kind and loving things being said to those that are gay in that thread.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gapeach said:


> What God do your children believe in? There is the Father, the son, and the holy ghost and they are the 3 in 1. I hope it is not the Sky Daddy that I just read about here. That is the most sacreligious thing I have ever heard of.
> God is kind and loving.


One that would never tell his creation that who they love is a sin. 

Sky daddy isn't nearly as ugly as some of the crap I've read on here today.... and that was from self proclaimed "good christians".


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

I expected this ruling, especially after the Obamacare ruling. The health care ruling hinted at the leaning of the court. As I have said before, I'll just sit back and watch what happens now. I'll wait and see the fruits that result from this decision.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

I do not understand why Aethism is so popular at this particular time and really want nothing to do with it. I don't really need to read all of this stuff either. We have gay people in our family and we also have gay friends. They are partners but not political activists. They are happy together and not planning to get married. 
I feel that tonight our White House is desecrated because of those rainbow spotlights on it. I am so sorry that our country that I love so much has come to this.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gapeach said:


> I do not understand why Aethism is so popular at this particular time and really want nothing to do with it. I don't really need to read all of this stuff either. We have gay people in our family and we also have gay friends. They are partners but not political activists. They are happy together and not planning to get married.
> I feel that tonight our White House is desecrated because of those rainbow spotlights on it. I am so sorry that our country that I love so much has come to this.


I have no clue why Christianity/Sky Daddyism has ever been popular. I'm so happy that it's the Rainbow House that I just may have another glass of wine and dance skyclad tonight in celebration.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Using words like hogwash and sky daddy are incredibly offensive to people. You think it's not simply because you don't believe the same thing. But when you say things like that you are actually being just as hateful as the people who oppose gay rights. 

I can't believe someone as intelligent as you does not see that or see that comments like that only perpetuates and encourages the hate from the other side. Instead of showing tolerance and understanding and taking them by their hand you show them the back of yours.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FeralFemale said:


> Using words like hogwash and sky daddy are incredibly offensive to people. You think it's not simply because you don't believe the same thing. But when you say things like that you are actually being just as hateful as the people who oppose gay rights.
> 
> I can't believe someone as intelligent as you does not see that or see that comments like that only perpetuates and encourages the hate from the other side. Instead of showing tolerance and understanding and taking them by their hand you show them the back of yours.


I know it's offensive and that's why I said it, but you are right. Everyone has an ignorance breaking point and I hit mine today. I lashed out at the ugliness with more ugly, and I don't regret it. At all. OK, mom?


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

Sigh.... Look. "Sky Daddy" was my fault. 

When people talk about a God that favors them and their kind, their color, their values, their ideals, who they can ask for things (and there are those who are asking him for frivolous stuff like a nice new boat, or a nicer house, or for their sister to get that cushy job) and he wants them to have all the very nicest things, but those other people are baaaaad, and evillll, and going to hell......based on uninformed assumptions about their sex life, or other stuff? 

I don't believe in that God. The bible says nothing about such a god existing. I know that there are people who have genuine faith and I do respect that. 

But this god that plays favorites and hates some people and is going to burn them in hell forever based merely on who they happened to fall in love with, that isn't the kind of faith I can respect, and that cruel, bigoted god of theirs, who loves only them and who listens to their prayers but has no use for us, is what I am talking about when I say "Sky Daddy"


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

chamoisee said:


> Sigh.... Look. "Sky Daddy" was my fault.
> 
> When people talk about a God that favors them and their kind, their color, their values, their ideals, who they can ask for things (and there are those who are asking him for frivolous stuff like a nice new boat, or a nicer house, or for their sister to get that cushy job) and he wants them to have all the very nicest things, but those other people are baaaaad, and evillll, and going to hell......based on uninformed assumptions about their sex life, or other stuff?
> 
> ...


You have nothing to apologize for... Have a good life, love who you want, marry who you want, and just live well.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I know it's offensive and that's why I said it, but you are right. Everyone has an ignorance breaking point and I hit mine today. I lashed out at the ugliness with more ugly, and I don't regret it. At all. OK, mom?


I've seen plenty of ugly from the left about this issue. It always amazed me that no one seemed to realize they were working against their purpose by being sanctimonious, smug, intolerant, ugly, sarcastic, and generally just nasty and thinking that it's totally okay because they are fighting the good fight. These opponents of gay marriage are, the majority, good people with sincerely held religious beliefs. They are protected by the Constitution just as much is LGBTQ. 

And as for ignorance, I've seen a lot of telling people they're wrong but not a lot of sincere attempts at explaining to people why they're wrong. There is a very true, emotional and heartfelt argument for gay marriage, but I see few on the left making that argument. They've just added their intolerance, unkindness and lack of empathy. 

And the targeting of Christian business owners, bakers, photographers, etc.? And their being forced to participate in gay marriages? Or the PC lynch mobs forcing people to resign or be fired for something said they don't agree with? Wow, was that a big mistake. 

All that accomplished is making the gay marriage opposition dig in their heels and possibly waking the silent moderate majority in this country who do not take kindly to the government forcing anything on anyone. That silent majority might just show up to the polls next election. Then all the advances we've made are screwed.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

I have no interest in making unwilling business owners bake or make anything for me. I had rather give the business to like minded folks. I can see, however, how someone might request a wedding cake, prepay for it, and then discover, after making the plans, that the owners were Christians and did not realize that the couple was gay. Most wedding cakes don't have names on them, so I can see how unexpected misunderstandings might arise. 

I don't even buy goats (or genetic material) from other goat breeders who are anti-gay. If they wrinkle their nose to look at me and act like I'm contaminated, I don't want to give them my money, much less promote their herd by using their genetics.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I seriously doubt that granting freedom and equality to all our citizens is going to lead to very much moral decay.


 What's the first thing most people say when they walk into Heaven? "Wow, what are YOU doing here?".... :happy2:


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

chamoisee said:


> I have no interest in making unwilling business owners bake or make anything for me. I had rather give the business to like minded folks. I can see, however, how someone might request a wedding cake, prepay for it, and then discover, after making the plans, that the owners were Christians and did not realize that the couple was gay. Most wedding cakes don't have names on them, so I can see how unexpected misunderstandings might arise.
> 
> I don't even buy goats (or genetic material) from other goat breeders who are anti-gay. If they wrinkle their nose to look at me and act like I'm contaminated, I don't want to give them my money, much less promote their herd by using their genetics.


 I really wish you never had to deal with that type of stuff


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FeralFemale said:


> I've seen plenty of ugly from the left about this issue. It always amazed me that no one seemed to realize they were working against their purpose by being sanctimonious, smug, intolerant, ugly, sarcastic, and generally just nasty and thinking that it's totally okay because they are fighting the good fight. These opponents of gay marriage are, the majority, good people with sincerely held religious beliefs. They are protected by the Constitution just as much is LGBTQ.
> 
> And as for ignorance, I've seen a lot of telling people they're wrong but not a lot of sincere attempts at explaining to people why they're wrong. There is a very true, emotional and heartfelt argument for gay marriage, but I see few on the left making that argument. They've just added their intolerance, unkindness and lack of empathy.
> 
> ...


Did it ever occur to you to perhaps, yesterday anyway, that the pro LGBTQ crowd was just happy? Decades of fight for equality finally happened, and instead of accepting the decision (which they have to because there is no real recourse) the anti crowd continued their ugliness. 

That was no mistake, American people spoke unequivocally that they will not tolerate discrimination against gays. Would/did you feel sorry and think it was wrong when owners wouldn't let blacks sit at the lunch counter? Same thing. The difference now is the media, news is instant and outrage just as fast. Equality means no discrimination. If you sell something you have to sell it to everyone. If you give one group a human right, all groups get that same right. 

I don't have to believe the hogwash, and I have the right to say it's hogwash just like the believer has the right to right to say it isn't. Ain't that great? I suggest that the believer develop the same type of skin that the non-believer has had to have. 

Gay marriage is here to stay, and I'll end with that great American adage, "Suck it up, buttercup".


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Did it ever occur to you to perhaps, yesterday anyway, that the pro LGBTQ crowd was just happy? Decades of fight for equality finally happened, and instead of accepting the decision (which they have to because there is no real recourse) the anti crowd continued their ugliness.
> 
> That was no mistake, American people spoke unequivocally that they will not tolerate discrimination against gays. Would/did you feel sorry and think it was wrong when owners wouldn't let blacks sit at the lunch counter? Same thing. The difference now is the media, news is instant and outrage just as fast. Equality means no discrimination. If you sell something you have to sell it to everyone. If you give one group a human right, all groups get that same right.
> 
> ...


Of course the LGBTQ crowd was happy they had every right to be. It was truly a great, historic day, one I've been predicting since the mid 90s when I researched a similar topic for my third year paper in law school. And it will be fun to read the Scotus decision to see if they use my same reasoning and constitutional analysis.

Unfortunately, yes, there has been ugliness and hate on this board. But merely disagreeing or stating marriage is between a man and a woman is not, in and of itself, hate. 

And the American people did not unequivocally speak. Five justices in DC and a smattering of judges around the country spoke. Only around 12 or so states legalized gay marriage through the people, either by legislation or referendum. The rest were decided in federal or state court, many times overturning a referendum by the voters to ban gay marriage. 

So, now, people are not only upset about the change in marriage, they're also upset because they feel it was forced upon them. This feeling is only compounded when you have gay couples targeting Christian businesses and demanding they participate in their weddings. And if the Christians refuse they are taken to court and lose their livelihood. That's an outrageous penalty for practicing your constitutionally protected religion. And the fact that they are purposefully targeted makes it all that more heinous. 

Refusing to bake and sell a cake to someone because they are gay is unlawful discrimination. Refusing to bake and sell a wedding cake for a gay wedding because you have sincerely held religious beliefs? That's still a grey area. That's an instance of two competing fundamental rights. And I'm sure will be seeing that percolating up to Scotus in the next couple years, because it is nothing like the lunch counters during the civil rights era. There were no competing fundamental rights in the civil rights era. 

As I've watched this all unfold, I couldn't help but think that if the change happened a just a little more organically and if the militant arm of the gay rights movement hadn't conducted a witch hunt then there wouldn't have been so much division on the issue. 

'Suck it up buttercup' is not going to change hearts and minds. You're just furthering the division. Since you clearly seem to enjoy it I'll just let you have at it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FeralFemale said:


> Of course the LGBTQ crowd was happy they had every right to be. It was truly a great, historic day, one I've been predicting since the mid 90s when I researched a similar topic for my third year paper in law school. And it will be fun to read the Scotus decision to see if they use my same reasoning and constitutional analysis.
> 
> Unfortunately, yes, there has been ugliness and hate on this board. But merely disagreeing or stating marriage is between a man and a woman is not, in and of itself, hate.
> 
> ...


You continue to use the term targeting. The couple in Colorado didn't target the bakery. They walked into a bakery that sold wedding cakes fully expecting to be able to buy a wedding cake. The owner denied them, "targeting" them because they are gay. No legal papers were filed until weeks later and I heard no rancor from the couple directed at the bakers. Only disappointment that they were deemed less worthy to have a cake than a dog.

The couple seeking flowers walked into a floral shop they had purchased flowers from before. Their gayness or participation by the florists in their life had never been an issue. Suddenly it was. Who targeted who for special treatment?

People wishing to buy cakes or flowers are militant but those who single them out for discrimination are pious? There's plenty of blame on both sides.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And they did NOT have to use THAT bakery. THEY KNEW all to well what they were doing and what was about to happen. And they got their wish, once again shove it in the face of good Christian people and the believes they hold deer.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> And they did NOT have to use THAT bakery. THEY KNEW all to well what they were doing and what was about to happen. And they got their wish, once again shove it in the face of good Christian people and the believes they hold deer.


There is no evidence that they entered the bakery expecting anything but to purchase a cake. The bakery, as far as I know, had never turned down a gay couple previously or made any public statements that they would. According to accounts I've read the first they knew they wouldn't be allowed to buy a cake was when the baker said they couldn't because they were gay. If you have different accounts that indicate otherwise, please share them.


And what of the florists. Did the couple target them or simply expect because their business and money had been welcome before it would be again?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I know it's offensive and that's why I said it, but you are right. Everyone has an ignorance breaking point and I hit mine today. I lashed out at the ugliness with more ugly, and I don't regret it. At all. OK, mom?


Well... you said it... You're a person who does ugly things and you don't regret it.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> There is no evidence that they entered the bakery expecting anything but to purchase a cake. The bakery, as far as I know, had never turned down a gay couple previously or made any public statements that they would. According to accounts I've read the first they knew they wouldn't be allowed to buy a cake was when the baker said they couldn't because they were gay. If you have different accounts that indicate otherwise, please share them.
> 
> 
> And what of the florists. Did the couple target them or simply expect because their business and money had been welcome before it would be again?


Wait please... You changed the story. The cake request was not rejected solely because the couple was Gay, but because what they wanted written or put upon the cake was offensive to the people that owned the bakery. What if someone wanted something vile and offensive written on the cake, should the bakers have had the opportunity to say "No"? What part of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is confusing to you or should people be forced to do things that violate their conscience just because they have the equipment and skills to make a product?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Using words like hogwash and sky daddy are *incredibly offensive* to people.


I doubt it's any more "offensive" than being told you have to follow a religion you don't necessarily practice, or that you have to live your life to suit those followers.

The Govt is by law required NOT to follow any religions



> Originally Posted by FeralFemale View Post
> I've seen plenty of *ugly from the left* about this issue. It always amazed me that no one seemed to realize they were working against their purpose by *being sanctimonious, smug, intolerant, ugly, sarcastic, and generally just nasty* and thinking that it's totally okay because they are fighting the good fight.


I'm seeing all those things from *both* sides


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> Wait please... You changed the story. The cake request was not rejected solely because the couple was Gay, but because what they wanted written or put upon the cake was offensive to the people that owned the bakery. What if someone wanted something vile and offensive written on the cake, should the bakers have had the opportunity to say "No"? What part of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is confusing to you or should people be forced to do things that violate their conscience just because they have the equipment and skills to make a product?


Wrong. There was no discussion of what the cake was to look like or have on it. The attempt to purchase was rejected soley because the couple was gay, a violation of local ordinances. 

Bakers can, and do, reject offensive language. They can even define that language for themselves. What they cannot do is define it differently for you and for me.

Signs like you quote mean nothing. They have no legal standing. Refusing service based on anything but a customer's conduct may be illegal and open a business up to civil action. 

No one has been forced to act against their concience. There are many ways to legally discriminate but if you invite someone in to your business with the promise you will sell them something you should honor that promise. You can even choose to discriminate and pay the subsequent penalty.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What part of "*We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone*" is confusing to you or should people be forced to do things that violate their conscience just because they have the equipment and skills to make a product?


What part of "that is illegal" confuses you?
Those signs haven't been legal since the 60's

No one was forced to "violate" anything
All they had to do (in this instance) was bake a cake, just as they would for anyone else


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

For anyone who isn't already familiar with it here's a link that includes the judge's ruling in the Colorado cake case.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/06/3035121/colorado-bakery-broke-law/


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

To get back to the OP. I woke up this morning, a day after the SC ruled that same sex marriages would be recognized across the land, and the sun came up, birds sang, and I was still married and committed to the woman who picked me 22 years ago. I talked to my DD and she and her hubby were still together. I waved at the neighbors who still seemed to be together. I saw no evidence anywhere that anyone's marriage had changed. You?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> For anyone who isn't already familiar with it here's a link that includes the judge's ruling in the Colorado cake case.
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/06/3035121/colorado-bakery-broke-law/


Back to the basics... twice this weekend I have been misinformed without verifying what I was informed about... I accept the punishment.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> Back to the basics... twice this weekend I have been misinformed without verifying what I was informed about... I accept the punishment.


No punishment from me. Appreciate the mea culpa, though.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

When will we figure out that religion and government are not meant to be the same thing. Separation of church and state was meant to protect us from such religion based decisions by the government.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

However, it appears that I am more correct than not regarding the Service Refusal sign...

None of this means that you absolutely cannot refuse to serve a customer. It simply means that you need a legitimate business reason to do so.
You can usually refuse service in the following situations:


 When a customer is not properly dressed
 When a customer has been, or is being, disruptive
 When a customer harasses your employees or other customers
 When there are safety concerns
 When you know someone can't, or won't, pay
 When a customer is intoxicated or high
 When you need to protect another customer's privacy
Remember, I was under the impression that it was an action being requested so my presumption that it could be refused was valid.
- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...t-to-refuse-service.html#sthash.UGu1YV42.dpuf


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> However, it appears that I am more correct than not regarding the Service Refusal sign...
> 
> None of this means that you absolutely cannot refuse to serve a customer. It simply means that you need a legitimate business reason to do so.
> You can usually refuse service in the following situations:
> ...


It's hard to see a customer requesting to purchase something as a legitimate reason to refuse selling them something. Isn't that the whole point of being in the bakery business? To sell baked goods.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> There is no evidence that they entered the bakery expecting anything but to purchase a cake. The bakery, as far as I know, had never turned down a gay couple previously or made any public statements that they would. According to accounts I've read the first they knew they wouldn't be allowed to buy a cake was when the baker said they couldn't because they were gay. If you have different accounts that indicate otherwise, please share them.
> 
> 
> And what of the florists. Did the couple target them or simply expect because their business and money had been welcome before it would be again?





Shine said:


> Wait please... You changed the story. The cake request was not rejected solely because the couple was Gay, but because what they wanted written or put upon the cake was offensive to the people that owned the bakery. What if someone wanted something vile and offensive written on the cake, should the bakers have had the opportunity to say "No"? What part of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is confusing to you or should people be forced to do things that violate their conscience just because they have the equipment and skills to make a product?


You may want to read the encounter at the bakery from the words of the people involved, the couple and the bakery, then decide what was said or asked.........

http://www.westword.com/restaurants...to-bake-a-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-5727921


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

While I appreciate your attempt to assist, I've already had that Crow Sammitch..


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Shine said:


> While I appreciate your attempt to assist, I've already had that Crow Sammitch..





Well..........if you read it, you may find your portion of crow was a bit more than you deserved.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

We also have assurances from the Supreme Court Justices that voted for this, that clergy won't be forced to preform same sex marriages.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...nstitutionally_be_forced_to_marry_gay_couples

Unfortunately in the other countries that have changed their laws like we just did, that's exactly what has happened.
It also doesn't help my confidence to know that a SCOTUS judge doesn't even know how the 1st amendment is written.......or maybe he just doesn't care.


At that point, Justice Stephen Breyer had to step in as well, to defend Justice Kagan and Bonauto's argument.

"It's called Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of religion..."


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2015)

"It's called Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of religion..."

I have no respecting of the scotus now for sure. I'm feeling a bit guilty for laughing because it really is not a laughing matter.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> To get back to the OP. I woke up this morning, a day after the SC ruled that same sex marriages would be recognized across the land, and the sun came up, birds sang, and I was still married and committed to the woman who picked me 22 years ago. I talked to my DD and she and her hubby were still together. I waved at the neighbors who still seemed to be together. I saw no evidence anywhere that anyone's marriage had changed. You?


My marriage of nearly 33 years was fine and dandy, my daughter's marriage of almost 10 years that includes my two grand babies, with one on the way, was great. My youngest daughter is still planning on getting married in October.

I'll wager that the only marriages that were effected were were brand new gay ones, and they were happy as could be.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Well... you said it... You're a person who does ugly things and you don't regret it.


Where did I say that? Are you making stuff up again?


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> I know it's offensive and that's why I said it, but you are right. Everyone has an ignorance breaking point and I hit mine today. I lashed out at the ugliness with more ugly, and I don't regret it. At all. OK, mom?


You need it requoted again?

So, the solution to ugly is ugly. Right.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where did I say that? Are you making stuff up again?


Nope, nobody is making stuff up... I was rather surprised myself when I read your post but there it was in black n white.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

partndn said:


> You need it requoted again?
> 
> So, the solution to ugly is ugly. Right.


I don't do ugly, I say ugly, lets get that straight right now. Yep, the solution yesterday was for ugly... tomorrow I'm not so sure. I like to take it a day at a time and figure out if the ugly is really needed, you know? I don't want to over use it...

I have a question, are you going to keep stalking my posts and leaping on them like a rabid dog if there's any little thing you don't like? You can, I don't mind at all, and if it makes you happy that's the most important thing.

You have a rainbow night.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't do ugly, I say ugly, lets get that straight right now. Yep, the solution yesterday was for ugly... tomorrow I'm not so sure. I like to take it a day at a time and figure out if the ugly is really needed, you know? I don't want to over use it...
> 
> I have a question, are you going to keep stalking my posts and leaping on them like a rabid dog if there's any little thing you don't like? You can, I don't mind at all, and if it makes you happy that's the most important thing.
> 
> You have a rainbow night.


Ok, so when anyone else posts ugly, it's _doing_ ugly. But when _you_ post ugly, it's _saying_ ugly. :huh: If that's your view, okie doke, but nobody else sees much difference in the two. And in case you forgot, every other person here has the right to make that decision each day, as you say, on when ugly is needed. Do you feel you are the only poster who can exercise that?

Rabid dog? ound: You're sounding victimish now. 
If you didn't mind at all that I respond to your post, you wouldn't have said anything. You get plenty of responses without me. I'm just glad I have come to find myself giggling more often than gritting my teeth at some of your comments.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

partndn said:


> Ok, so when anyone else posts ugly, it's _doing_ ugly. But when _you_ post ugly, it's _saying_ ugly. :huh: If that's your view, okie doke, but nobody else sees much difference in the two. And in case you forgot, every other person here has the right to make that decision each day, as you say, on when ugly is needed. Do you feel you are the only poster who can exercise that?
> 
> Rabid dog? ound: You're sounding victimish now.
> If you didn't mind at all that I respond to your post, you wouldn't have said anything. You get plenty of responses without me. I'm just glad I have come to find myself giggling more often than gritting my teeth at some of your comments.


I'm confused about your first sentence, isn't everything done on the internet _saying_ rather than doing? You know it's not real life, only words on a screen? 

Thanks! Everyone needs a laugh, and some a lot more than others.  

Have a wonderful rainbow day, I know I will.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where did I say that? Are you making stuff up again?


Nope... took it out of your post on the first page... word for word.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> You may want to read the encounter at the bakery from the words of the people involved, the couple and the bakery, then decide what was said or asked.........
> 
> http://www.westword.com/restaurants...to-bake-a-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-5727921


A apologize for saying the couple held no animus towards the baker. The gentleman's words on parting indicate otherwise but I will say I might react similarly if a business acted in a similar manner towards me.

As to the other facts I stated - I'll stand behind them as they are supported by the account in the judges decision I posted.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm confused about your first sentence, isn't everything done on the internet _saying_ rather than doing? You know it's not real life, only words on a screen?
> 
> Thanks! Everyone needs a laugh, and some a lot more than others.
> 
> Have a wonderful rainbow day, I know I will.


The words on my screen are posted by real people, with real lives, and real feelings. It is not just a fantasy world.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The words on my screen are posted by real people, with real lives, and real feelings. It is not just a fantasy world.


Posted by real people, yes/maybe/who knows?, but it's not real, it's virtual... Unless you have a relationship with the people outside of the internet, that would be real.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Posted by real people, yes/maybe/who knows?, but it's not real, it's virtual... Unless you have a relationship with the people outside of the internet, that would be real.



It's kinda like arguing with yourself then, or chasing ones tail.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Posted by real people, yes/maybe/who knows?, but it's not real, it's virtual... Unless you have a relationship with the people outside of the internet, that would be real.


You are free to believe whatever you like, but I have met quite a few people on line and have developed some very real relationships with them.... One such person I am married to.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You are free to believe whatever you like, but I have met quite a few people on line and have developed some very real relationships with them.... One such person I am married to.


Exactly. You met them and they are real. I'll go as far to say that if you talk to them on the phone they're real. But a forum? It's a human you're typing to but it's not real life.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

So yours is the only possible perception?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> So yours is the only possible perception?


Of course not. It's my opinion. This was started over "saying" and "doing" and saying is the only thing that you can do on the internet. Pun kinda intended.


----------

