Gay couples will have the right to adopt priests

[Aeson]

And that, I believe is my point.

No, it's not your point. That is my point. The point you've been arguing against this whole time.

IT'S NOT A RISK INNATE TO SEXUALITY.

Then why does CDC state that homosexual men are an at-risk group?

They state several other groups are "at-risk", including "everyone".

Homosexuality is obviously not the risk factor.

I don't think "It's only Americans" is a very compelling argument here.

Which no doubt is why you've conjured that argument to argue against.

It's not editing out for this, no, but it is including all of them as a collective. So it is a fair study that way.

It doesn't describe the risks of using protection, abstinence, or sticking to monogamous relationships for homosexuals. So when you used it to draw a conclusion about the relative risks of using protection, abstinence, and/or in monogamous relationships for homosexuals you were misusing the data and promoting an obviously flawed conclusion so as to deny homosexuals equal rights.

The truly absurd thing is the right you want to deny homosexuals is a life choice that has been shown to decrease the risk you are supposedly "worried" about. As is the protection that you want to deny children information about.

My argument is not, "there is no way to lower your risks". My argument is that the real world risk does not reflect what you are saying it is. We have to accept that the risk is what it is, not what it might be if things were different.

Is the risk innate to sexual orientation? Or is it not? You keep saying you understand it's not, but then going right back in to misuse statistics to try to show it is innate to sexual orientation.

The simple truth is that sexual orientation is not the risk factor, and how closely it corresponds to the actual risk factors varies tremendously between various subsets of the world population.

[Aeson]

What law? Legally she is bound to uphold the law in KY as it is. All of it, not just the parts of it. That's the problem here. Kim Davis already swore a legal oath and she could have been arrested for failing to uphold her oath. Now, perhaps to you it's a simple matter, but legally it is not. You cannot arrest someone for legally performing her duties. And now KY has settled the issue by permitting the clerks to exercise their freedom of conscience.

She was held in contempt of court, legally.

Secondly, would you have supported arresting clerks who issued illegal licenses to homosexual men and women prior to Oberfell? If not, why not?

Yes I would, even though I would agree with them that homosexual couples should be treated the same as heterosexual couples under law. The reasons are:

a) the law is important to follow, especially for agents of the law
b) if the law is unjust, the law needs to be changed, not just circumvented
c) in this hypothetical case, the circumvention of an unjust law would have been actually harmful to the cause of justice. No actual rights would have been awarded, it would mislead the couples into thinking they had rights they did not have potentially even causing them problems after homosexual marriage was legalized, and it would paint the movement as illegitimate.

(If situations were different, such as more pressing harm done and not so close to legally obtaining the protections, then some form of civil disobedience might be required.)

I'm not sure you believe the first amendment exists.

That's because you are stupid.

[Ben Kenobi]

She was held in contempt of court, legally.

It is not the job of the clerk in KY to change the law in KY. She was in a no win situation.

Yes I would, even though I would agree with them that homosexual couples should be treated the same as heterosexual couples under law. The reasons are:

a) the law is important to follow, especially for agents of the law
b) if the law is unjust, the law needs to be changed, not just circumvented

There are protocols for that. Kim Davis did not have the authority to start issuing those licenses, and the law in KY is clear. One man and one woman. So, what should she have done? Broken the KY law she swore to uphold?

c) in this hypothetical case, the circumvention of an unjust law would have been actually harmful to the cause of justice. No actual rights would have been awarded, it would mislead the couples into thinking they had rights they did not have potentially even causing them problems after homosexual marriage was legalized, and it would paint the movement as illegitimate.

There have been no arrests of any clerk who has done so, Aeson. Not a single one. Kim Davis is the only one who has been arrested. That speaks volumes to me about the 'respect of law'.

(If situations were different, such as more pressing harm done and not so close to legally obtaining the protections, then some form of civil disobedience might be required.)

In this case there were no harms. The petitioners weren't KY residents. They could have gone to a closer county within the state of Ohio.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, it's not your point. That is my point.

It is my point, Aeson. I agreed with you when you spoke on continence. Your argument is that it is possible for one to possess a sexuality and not act on it. What have I been arguing the whole time? Just that point.

There is a difference between sexual desires and sexual actions. Actions have risks, desires do not.

They state several other groups are "at-risk", including "everyone".

81 percent of syphilis infections are gay men. I should think that gay men are "at risk"

Homosexuality is obviously not the risk factor.

CDC disagrees. You'll have to take it up with them. When 81 percent of syphilis infections are in a subgroup CDC states is 2 percent of the population, yes, homosexual sex is the risk factor.

Which no doubt is why you've conjured that argument to argue against.

You raised up the point that I've only cited American statistics. I don't see why that's relevant. It's a non-sequitor. Why is nationality a relevant issue, Aeson?

It doesn't describe the risks of using protection, abstinence, or sticking to monogamous relationships for homosexuals.

Nor does it do so for heterosexuals. The study doesn't care, it just looks at everyone. In that sense it is a fair study.

So when you used it to draw a conclusion about the relative risks of using protection, abstinence, and/or in monogamous relationships for homosexuals

Which is why I've not done so. I've simply considered the overall risk for everyone without attempting to break it down. Like I did with smoking - I didn't break it down between men and women, pack a day smokers, people who quit, etc.

You didn't raise a single complaint about my citation of an 8-9x risk for lung cancer in smokers vs non-smokers. Yet, you think when the same thing is done here that we should take these things into consideration. Why?

you were misusing the data and promoting an obviously flawed conclusion so as to deny homosexuals equal rights.

Then feel free to cite where in the thread I've done so. The question you raised was, "if smoking has related health risks, what are the health risks associated with homosexual activity?" I have answered that question.

The truly absurd thing is the right you want to deny homosexuals is a life choice that has been shown to decrease the risk you are supposedly "worried" about. As is the protection that you want to deny children information about.

We have considerable regulations on smokers all throughout the United States. From the source I've cited they have an 8-9x risk for lung cancer, which is significant and substantial.

Looking at homosexual activity - we see 100x the risk for syphilis, gonorrhea, about 60x for HIV, and about 60x the rate for Chlamydia.

If we are going to treat the health risks associated with smoking as a serious problem, then by the same measure we should do the same for homosexual sex. Comparing the two you are 10x as likely to acquire any of these STDs as you are to acquire lung cancer. This is not a small, nor unrelated problem.

That, is the answer. All I have argued for is education. I think that if children were presented with these numbers and the facts, it would go a long way to preventing the spread of STDs and yes, saving lives.

Is the risk innate to sexual orientation?

You have already stated that one is capable of controlling one's sexual desires. Again, sexual acts are not sexual desires. These are all my arguments, Aeson. There are ways for people to adjust their behaviors and actions to reduce their chances for STD transmission. I've said that all the way through.

Tell me, Aeson. Would you oppose children being taught this here? That 81 percent of all syphilis infections are gay men?

The simple truth is that sexual orientation is not the risk factor, and how closely it corresponds to the actual risk factors varies tremendously between various subsets of the world population.

The actual risk factors are quite enlightening. Sure, in an ideal world, the risk factors would be much smaller, but that's not what we see in the actual world. I think we owe people to show people what the actual risk factors are.

[Aeson]

It is not the job of the clerk in KY to change the law in KY. She was in a no win situation.

Her job was to issue the marriage certificates according to law. The courts are there to determine what is and is not in accordance with law. SCOTUS ruled, KY Federal courts ruled, and she was in violation of those rulings.

There are protocols for that.

And in the US that involves the court system. The appeal was thrown out by SCOTUS. That is the protocol.

Kim Davis did not have the authority to start issuing those licenses, and the law in KY is clear. One man and one woman. So, what should she have done? Broken the KY law she swore to uphold?

She could have respected the rulings of the courts, which have legal authority, or stepped down if she felt she could not do so for whatever reason. She had no legal authority to obstruct the application of the rulings.

There have been no arrests of any clerk who has done so, Aeson. Not a single one. Kim Davis is the only one who has been arrested. That speaks volumes to me about the 'respect of law'.

No, it mainly speaks volumes about how far on the wrong side you are, that there generally aren't people willing to even apply the law to continue to support your oppression of homosexuals. Most people aren't entirely consistent (you sure aren't) in their application of logic, allowing emotion and bias to color their actions. I can see that doing so is legally (and otherwise) wrong, but those who wouldn't jail a clerk for issuing an illegal marriage license to a homosexual couple at least have their heart in the right place.

You have neither your heart in the right place, nor legal backing for your position.

In this case there were no harms.

You are not the legal authority. The courts ruled already. And thankfully we have what we should have had a long time ago, more equal protections under law for homosexual couples.

[Ming]

Well then, changing the documents and preventing me from signing a promise to my wife would also violate my rights.
So is lying and signing something that is false.
Then why would I be forced to sign a lie?
Interesting. So you don't consider changing a marriage certificate to remove the word 'wife' be a 'significant' change.
Then why am I not permitted to do so? Why am I being forced to sign a lie?

Nothing is preventing you from signing the document. Also, what's wrong with the term "spouse". Spouse means "either member of a married pair in relation to the other; one's husband or wife." What lie are you talking about? The word "wife" is being substituted by a word that includes wife in its definition.

Uh, the judge confirmed that the province of BC was breaking the law, and has restored accreditation. S

Then why did you bring it up as a loss of your religious freedom when in the end a judge decided that the original action was wrong?
And why didn't you mention this fact when you originally brought it up. It sounds like the court system did its due diligence.

Yes, Avakian did. The case is currently in appeal.

While the case remains unsettled the state has no right to seize moneys that it is not entitled to due to due process. Doing this is a good way to get the entire case tossed out.

What law was broken? Fines and judgments cannot be collected while the case is still being tried. I'm sure prosecutors will like that but the law is pretty clear here. The State of Oregon cannot just help themselves to the bank accounts of American citizens.

While the case was still under appeal, yes, it was illegal.

Uhhh... no...

According to Tyler Smith, the couple’s lawyer, they had asked the state to hold off on collection attempts, but the request was denied. Back in September, the state warned that if the Kleins refused to set up a bond or irrevocable letter of credit, officials would have “no other option but to docket the judgment against them.” It is thus unsurprising that after the couple refused to comply for another three months, the state took action.
Smith acknowledged in a statement that “Oregon law requires that as they appeal the Oregon government’s decision denying them their First Amendment rights, they must either pay the amount imposed by the Oregon government, or obtain a bond for the amount of the judgment. The least expensive option to stay in compliance with the law was to pay the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries funds that will be kept in a separate account until they prevail in their court appeal.”

In other words, the couple and their lawyers knew that by not paying they were in violation of the order.

So after ignoring the state for three months illegally, the state took action. Gee, who was in the wrong.
Also, you fail to note that they had no problem paying the fine since they have collected over $500,000 from online donations.

What crime was committed? The state of Oregon levied a fine of150k, which will be eventually overturned on appeal.

The owner denied the full and equal accommodation, advantages, facilities and privileges of Sweet Cakes by Melissa to Complainants based on their sexual orientation thereby violating ORS 659A.403,” That law... look it up. And most legal experts doubt the it will be overturned on appeal.

Insofar as Christians are required to sign a marriage license, changing the text of the license alters every single marriage license, Christian or no, issued in the US since Oberfell. This is a logical conclusion.
I will sign the truth, that I am marrying my wife. If the state chooses to claim I am not married, then I will fight that.

You sure are making a big deal about a word substitution. Spouse means wife or husband. And yet again, please explain how this changes the holy sacrament. You haven't done that yet, and it's the Sacrament is all that matters.
And the paper you sign is the TRUTH since SPOUSE = WIFE

I have. I just had the privilege of attending a 50th wedding anniversary this year. They had the whole pictures and the marriage license. I thought it was very beautiful. I would love to have the same thing.

You will... it will be a wedding license showing people that you are husband and wife...

But i guess your whole life will be ruined, and you will never be able to get married because of the word spouse, which means husband or wife...
So i guess love and god really mean nothing to you since you will let semantics get in the way. Your loss.

[Ben Kenobi]

Her job was to issue the marriage certificates according to law.

Which law? Kentucky's law. Kentucky's law explicitly states one man and one woman.

The courts are there to determine what is and is not in accordance with law.

Great, then it's not the job of Kim Davis.

SCOTUS ruled, KY Federal courts ruled, and she was in violation of those rulings.

KY state law remains one man and one woman.

And in the US that involves the court system. The appeal was thrown out by SCOTUS. That is the protocol.

But KY law remains the same. There was a proper protocol that was not followed here.

She could have respected the rulings of the courts

She did. She respected the courts of Kentucky and the people who elected her, the people of the state of Kentucky.

She had no legal authority to obstruct the application of the rulings.

As an elected official she had legal authority to represent the will of the people who elected her, the people of Kentucky. And their desires have been very clear.

No, it mainly speaks volumes about how far on the wrong side you are

I'm talking about clerks issuing illegal licenses prior to Oberfell. You've already stated that these people should be arrested because they were breaking the law. They were not. Davis, was. How do you reconcile that? If rule of law has any significance then it is blind and applies equally. To both sides.

Whether one supports or disagrees with the law is irrelevant. That the law was not enforced again speaks volumes. If the law wasn't being enforced for homosexual marriage supporting clerks who broke the law, why was Kim Davis put to jail?

that there generally aren't people willing to even apply the law to continue to support your oppression of homosexuals.

The law is the law, Aeson. Again, you said you supported these clerks being put to jail for breaking the law. Your words.

Most people aren't entirely consistent (you sure aren't) in their application of logic, allowing emotion and bias to color their actions. I can see that doing so is legally (and otherwise) wrong, but those who wouldn't jail a clerk for issuing an illegal marriage license to a homosexual couple at least have their heart in the right place.

No, Aeson. I see that the entire edifice of 'equality' is based on the constitution. Without the constitution there can be no 'true' equality and there cannot be true 'rights' protected in the United States. Taking rights away from people because they have 'wrong' opinions isn't part of liberty and certainly not of Justice.

It's counterproductive to your end goals.

You have neither your heart in the right place, nor legal backing for your position.

I suspect cooler and wiser heads understand that pendulums swing both ways.

And thankfully we have what we should have had a long time ago, more equal protections under law for homosexual couples.

It was not necessary to arrest Kim Davis in order to get there. Surely you see this.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nothing is preventing you from signing the document.

Not wanting to lie before God is pretty strong motivation...

Also, what's wrong with the term "spouse". Spouse means "either member of a married pair in relation to the other; one's husband or wife." What lie are you talking about? The word "wife" is being substituted by a word that includes wife in its definition.

She is my wife. Anything else on that document is a lie before God.

Then why did you bring it up as a loss of your religious freedom when in the end a judge decided that the original action was wrong?

That they were stripped of it in the first place is a loss to religious freedom.

And why didn't you mention this fact when you originally brought it up. It sounds like the court system did its due diligence.

Thankfully in this case they did. But, it doesn't bode well for BC that the province was willing to strip them in the first place.

The feds did arrest her.

Then It's over, she was exonerated and the law has been changed by the Governor of Kentucky protecting the conscience rights of his clerks.

Uhhh... no...

None of the reasons for seizing prior apply to this case. Avakian committed a serious mistake here.

It is thus unsurprising that after the couple refused to comply for another three months, the state took action.

Unsurprising, sure, but the case is still under appeal. Final judgment has not been rendered.

Smith acknowledged in a statement that “Oregon law requires that as they appeal the Oregon government’s decision denying them their First Amendment rights, they must either pay the amount imposed by the Oregon government, or obtain a bond for the amount of the judgment. The least expensive option to stay in compliance with the law was to pay the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries funds that will be kept in a separate account until they prevail in their court appeal.”

Which has not been done, but it doesn't justify Avakian's seizure of 7,000 from the bakers private banking accounts.

In other words, the couple and their lawyers knew that by not paying they were in violation of the order. So after ignoring the state for three months illegally, the state took action. Gee, who was in the wrong.

Avakian, in this case.

Also, you fail to note that they had no problem paying the fine since they have collected over $500,000 from online donations.

Good for them. Now if justice prevails they can keep all of it.

The owner denied the full and equal accommodation, advantages, facilities and privileges of Sweet Cakes by Melissa to Complainants based on their sexual orientation thereby violating ORS 659A.403,” That law... look it up. And most legal experts doubt the it will be overturned on appeal.

She served plenty of gay and lesbian clients. So accommodation isn't going to fly here. She was more than willing to provide a blank cake but not to cater their wedding. This case is going to go all the way up to the Supremes.

You sure are making a big deal about a word substitution.

It is a big deal. She is my wife.

You will... it will be a wedding license showing people that you are husband and wife...

No, Ming, I won't unless things change again. it will say, "Spouse A and Spouse B".

So i guess love and god really mean nothing to you since you will let semantics get in the way. Your loss.

Say I'm in business. I am offered a contract for half of my earnings for a lifetime, should I break the contract. I say, I will sign it provided that some of the wording changes. You say I can't legally change the wording.

What do you think I'm going to say, Ming? "Change the wording".

[Aeson]

It is my point, Aeson. I agreed with you when you spoke on continence. Your argument is that it is possible for one to possess a sexuality and not act on it.

You are misrepresenting my position. I am saying it is possible for homosexuals to have safe sex. That is still acting on their sexuality. Do you agree that homosexuals couples can have sex with each other in ways that are safe?

While it is possible for someone to not act on their sexuality, it's not healthy and I wouldn't suggest anyone repress their sexuality unless acting on it would result in a non-consensual harm to others. (Such as for pedophiles, rapists, etc.)

You raised up the point that I've only cited American statistics. I don't see why that's relevant. It's a non-sequitor. Why is nationality a relevant issue, Aeson?

Because your argument is that there is risk inherent to homosexuality. For that to be proven true you have to show that all homosexual communities, and all homosexual individuals, display the same risk once all other factors have been accounted for.

Instead you are cherry picking groups to look at, willfully ignoring groups which do not fit your conclusions, and not accounting for any other factors even when you claimed to be accounting for other factors.

Which is why I've not done so. I've simply considered the overall risk for everyone without attempting to break it down.

I stated that homosexuals could have sex in ways that minimized the risk. You responded saying it's still 100x the risk. You clearly were trying to pretend that your "overall" stats (which aren't overall at all, they are very localized) accurately described the relative risk between a homosexual couple who has been tested having monogamous sex, and a heterosexual couple in the same situation. You were obviously wrong, and now are obviously lying about what you said.

You didn't raise a single complaint about my citation of an 8-9x risk for lung cancer in smokers vs non-smokers. Yet, you think when the same thing is done here that we should take these things into consideration. Why?

It is very clear that smoking is itself a risk factor to anyone who smokes.

If you were to argue that electronic cigarettes are just as dangerous as regular cigarettes I would point out that you are wrong, just as I have done when you try to pretend that all homosexual activity is the same risk.

Then feel free to cite where in the thread I've done so. The question you raised was, "if smoking has related health risks, what are the health risks associated with homosexual activity?" I have answered that question.

I didn't raise that question. The "analogy" between smoking and homsexuality was raised by yourself and others. I have shown it is not an analog.

I said that smoking is an act, homosexuality is not an act. That is simply true.

If we are going to treat the health risks associated with smoking as a serious problem, then by the same measure we should do the same for homosexual sex.

Treating the issues as the same shows clearly how ignorant your position is.

That, is the answer. All I have argued for is education.

No, you are arguing for a very one-sided look at the issue. The way you have treated the issue, the analogs you have drawn, the statistics you have cherry picked, the statistcs you have ignored, and how you have represented arguments that include those ignored statistics clearly shows your bias.

You have already stated that one is capable of controlling one's sexual desires. Again, sexual acts are not sexual desires. These are all my arguments, Aeson. There are ways for people to adjust their behaviors and actions to reduce their chances for STD transmission. I've said that all the way through.

I'm glad you support schools teaching kids about how condoms, being selective of partners, and alternative forms of sex can help reduce the risks associated with sexual intercourse.

Except we all know you don't support that.

Tell me, Aeson. Would you oppose children being taught this here? That 81 percent of all syphilis infections are gay men?

I support a comprehensive presentation of the facts in public schools so that children can make informed decisions when the time comes. That includes how use of condoms affects risk, how promiscuity/monogamy affects risk, how testing yourself and your partners affects risk.

I do not support cherry picking stats to scare monger with. The stats should be comprehensive and show what the actual risk factors are, rather than to use overly broad definitions to obfuscate the actual risk factors.

The actual risk factors are quite enlightening.

So why do you keep dropping them in favor of overly broad, meaningless umbrella topics like "homosexual acts"?

Treating all sex between homosexuals as the same not only is a disservice to homosexuals, it's a disservice to heterosexuals who are given a false sense of security. The reality is that gay men can have safe sex with other men if they take the proper precautions, and that a promiscuous heterosexual who doesn't use protection is almost sure to get an STD sooner or later.

The risk factor is not their sexuality.

[Aeson]

Which law? Kentucky's law. Kentucky's law explicitly states one man and one woman.

SCOTUS and KY Federal courts had both ruled. That is how the law works.

Great, then it's not the job of Kim Davis.

It was her job according to the law.

I'm talking about clerks issuing illegal licenses prior to Oberfell. You've already stated that these people should be arrested because they were breaking the law. They were not. Davis, was. How do you reconcile that? If rule of law has any significance then it is blind and applies equally. To both sides.

I already explained it as your position being so ugly and hateful that people don't want to associate themselves with it even in cases where legally they should.

The law is the law, Aeson. Again, you said you supported these clerks being put to jail for breaking the law. Your words.

You are the one arguing with the law. I have said I support it in both instances.

I can still make a personal assessment of the value of moral positions though, without them affecting my legal position. Your position is ugly and hateful, and has been the cause of untold harm to the human race. Their position is legally wrong, but they are acting out of compassion and love of their fellow human beings and so morally are much, much better than you. They are also better Christians than you... even if they aren't Christian at all.

NWithout the constitution there can be no 'true' equality and there cannot be true 'rights' protected in the United States.

SCOTUS is the ultimate authority in Constitutional matters. They ruled in regards to gay marriage, and then threw out the appeal by Kim Davis.

It was not necessary to arrest Kim Davis in order to get there.

It wasn't necessary, not much is. The tides have turned on this issue, decisively. Kim Davis is a drop in the ocean, but the ocean is simply all the drops taken as a whole.

In any case it was legal.

[Ellestar]

They have a Christian university in British Columbia that has had considerable difficulties getting accreditation because they insist that everyone who attends follow a biblical standard of behavior. They are a private college, funded solely by donations.

You mean, they have trouble getting accreditation because they don't allow gays to be students there? Wow, what the hell gays forgot in a Christian university, anyway? What's next? No accreditation for a Christian university because they don't allow Satanists in? I heard they're popular in USA once again... USA falls to a lower and lower moral standards.

P.S. Actually, come to think about it, being gay is not really a problem here. A gay can still marry a woman, have children and live like everyone else, and be a proper Christian (at least that's how it looks to me). If a gay instead prefers to listen to instincts, to be an animal, and do what his instincts tell him to do with other gays, i think he's not really a Christian irregardless of being gay. In that case, what he forgot in a Christian university? It's obviously not a place for him to be.

They broke the LAW.

Well, that's why i'm against giving any extra rights to gays. You allow something extra once, and then gays start bull**** like that, harassing Christians because of their beliefs (i'm an atheist and even i'm affronted by it) and saying "it's a LAW hahaha suck my dick mother****ers".

Your conclusions aren't supported by the statistics you are trying to support them with.

In that you are pretending it's a problem with homosexuality. It isn't. It's a problem with unprotected promiscuous sex. You're also ignoring most of the world's population, various subsets of which have very different statistics in this regard.

Wait a second. There is a statistics (not a conclusion) that gays are 100-150 times more likely to have sex-related diseases. And that's it. It's a fact. I don't see any "conclusions" here.

[Ellestar]

No, Ming, I won't unless things change again. it will say, "Spouse A and Spouse B".

ROFLMAO Seriously? I always thought it's an anecdote about stupid foreigners. After all, there is no reason to change sertificates for normal families, so i kinda didn't consider that it may actually happen.

I'm sorry for you man, you're having it rough in your country.

[Ming]

Not wanting to lie before God is pretty strong motivation...
She is my wife. Anything else on that document is a lie before God.

One last time... your wife is your spouse. FACT... NO LIE HERE.

Then It's over, she was exonerated and the law has been changed by the Governor of Kentucky protecting the conscience rights of his clerks.

Yeah, it's over, but she was not "exonerated"

None of the reasons for seizing prior apply to this case. Avakian committed a serious mistake here.
Unsurprising, sure, but the case is still under appeal. Final judgment has not been rendered.
Which has not been done, but it doesn't justify Avakian's seizure of 7,000 from the bakers private banking accounts.
Avakian, in this case.

Maybe you should do a little research to see just how wrong you are. Even the couples lawyers knew they were violating the state law by not paying.

You are the only person who thinks they don't have to pay until the appeal is complete. All the lawyers, the state, and everybody actually involved in the case knew they had to pay. You are simply lying or being totally stupid. You are simply wrong and you have no real facts to support all your incorrect statements. ALL the FACTS support that they were required to pay, and then didn't, so the state took a LEGAL ACTION, which even their lawyer is not objecting to because HE KNOWS THE LAW. You don't.

She served plenty of gay and lesbian clients. So accommodation isn't going to fly here. She was more than willing to provide a blank cake but not to cater their wedding. This case is going to go all the way up to the Supremes.

So far, nobody agrees with them... and yet again, most real legal experts see no way they can win this one. They broke the law, and they had to paid.
Pure and simple. Maybe in Benland they can win, but not in reality.

It is a big deal. She is my wife.

She is your spouse... which is totally correct and not a lie. Feel free to look the word up.
I'm sure God knows what spouse means even though you don't.

Say I'm in business. I am offered a contract for half of my earnings for a lifetime, should I break the contract. I say, I will sign it provided that some of the wording changes. You say I can't legally change the wording.

It's not a contract... it's a license... So as usual, your poor attempt fails.

[Ming]

Well, that's why i'm against giving any extra rights to gays. You allow something extra once, and then gays start bull**** like that, harassing Christians because of their beliefs (i'm an atheist and even i'm affronted by it) and saying "it's a LAW hahaha suck my dick mother****ers".

What extra rights? They don't want to be discriminated against... which is the same right everybody in the US has. Nothing "extra" about it.
And as far as harassing Christians because of their beliefs, it's the other way around. It's the Christians and people like you who think having gay sex is "acting like an animal" and who think gays will burn in hell for eternity... now that's harassment!

[Kidlicious]

So many people are discriminated against that it's not even funny. Drug users, non-drug users, peoples with tattoos, people without tattoos, smokers, non-smokers, drinkers etc....

You've chosen to focus on discrimination against gays. Why?