20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted (Part 2)

20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted (Part 2) November 16, 2018

We’re looking at popular arguments against same-sex marriage (and a few that are just anti-gay). Conservative radio host Frank Turek provides most of the material. (Part 1 here.)

5. Think of the babies!

Frank has an odd but popular view of what marriage is.

The real reason governments have an interest in promoting natural marriage [is] because only natural marriage perpetuates and stabilizes society. Strong marriage laws encourage men and women to procreate and then stay together to mother and father their children.

First off, Frank seems confused about cause and effect. Children are important to society, but give credit where it’s due. It’s sex that makes babies, not marriage. Two people might barely know each other but still start the baby-making process in five minutes, which has very little to do with what we think of as marriage.

Second, Jesus is portrayed in the Bible as the metaphorical husband married to the church. The ideas of joy, love, and protection are used when discussing this marriage, never making babies. Frank needs to explain why his definition is at odds with that in the Bible.

Third, it’s true that government makes laws that protect and encourage stable families. However, there’s a lot more to marriage than just children. For example, society makes laws about divorce, spousal abuse, care of elderly, taxes, control of assets when a spouse is imprisoned or incapacitated, the definition of common law marriage, inheritance, and more that affect marriages with or without children.

Fourth, Frank now has a fun slogan: “it’s not bigotry—it’s biology!” Don’t blame him; we’re bound by the realities of nature. But if it’s all about the biology, wouldn’t you expect to see this biology made plain in marriage vows or in the state’s marriage certificate? The silence screams volumes.

Let’s be consistent about the children. If marriage is all about making and raising children, then don’t offer marriage to straight couples who don’t or won’t or can’t have children. Give a willing couple five years, say, and if they don’t produce, yank the marriage license. Or consider another example: my wife and I won’t be making any more children, so do we deserve to still be married?

If you’re okay with childless straight couples, then be consistent and support gay couples with no interest in children. And if your focus is on the children, support the 40,000 children in California living with same-sex parents, prohibited until recently from getting married.

Frank again:

Children raised in biological two-parent homes tend to do better and cause society much less trouble than children raised in other situations

We probably describe the perfect household in a similar way, but just because we prefer a home with loving parents, financial security, a safe neighborhood, excellent schools, and good job opportunities doesn’t mean that that exists for every child. But if children’s environment is truly a concern, why not focus on what we all agree degrades that environment—urban decay, poverty, drugs, domestic violence, gangs, and so on? Why does Frank focus solely on the sex of the parents? I’m beginning to suspect that this concern for children is just a smokescreen.

And let’s not be too quick to rank mom-and-dad households over households with same-sex parents. One study came to the opposite conclusion. That doesn’t resolve the issue, but Frank’s assumption that same-sex households are significantly worse is at least debatable. Anyway, that’s irrelevant—if a woman got divorced, has custody of her child, and is now a lesbian (to take one example), the argument “But your family would be better with a man” is irrelevant.

And I’m surprised at Frank’s preference for biological parents. Doesn’t that undercut adoption as the conservative solution to unwanted pregnancies?

6. Homosexuality is harmful!

Don’t blame Frank for the facts of nature, he says. He reminds us that babies only come from male/female sex (which is clumsy sleight of hand to make us think that the topic is sex rather than marriage).

And then this:

I didn’t make up the fact that we all have desires we ought not act on, regardless if we are born with those desires.

He expands on this idea:

If you are born with a genetic predisposition to alcohol, does that mean God wants you to be an alcoholic? If someone has a genetic attraction to children, does that mean God wants you to be a pedophile? . . .

For the sake of civilization, we all need to restrain our destructive behaviors.

Sure, we have desires we shouldn’t act on—harmful ones. The problem for Frank’s argument is that he does nothing to argue that homosexual desires are harmful.

To be continued.

It’s all about the children.
— what no marriage vow says

.
(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 1/7/15.)

Image credit: Joost Assink, CC

.

"No doubt he opposes LGBT adoption too, so if there were children he'd still want ..."

20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted ..."
"I suppose there are variations to this type of question. For example, have you ever ..."

Missionary John Chau Died for Nothing: ..."
"The people who helped him should be charged with a crime.Some of them have been ..."

Missionary John Chau Died for Nothing: ..."
"I suppose there are variations to this type of question. For example, have you ever ..."

Missionary John Chau Died for Nothing: ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • eric

    The real reason governments have an interest in promoting natural marriage [is] because only natural marriage perpetuates and stabilizes society. Strong marriage laws encourage men and women to procreate and then stay together to mother and father their children.

    Offering the same economic and social benefits to same-sex couples with an adopted or biological child would equally encourage them to stay together to parent their children.

    But in any event, as long as society nets 2.1 babies per two adults or about that, it doesn’t really matter to the government who is having babies and who is not. If ~2% of the population chooses not to have babies (even though they get married), but the number of children per capita stay about at the replacement rate, who cares?

    Children raised in biological two-parent homes tend to do better and cause society much less trouble than children raised in other situations

    Speaking as a single dad, if your goal is to ensure my kid has more resources, then you should promote increased tax breaks/decreased tax rates for single people. Forcing two adults who don’t love each other and can’t really even stand each other much to co-habitate is not going to lead to a better outcome for their child. But more money in my pocket for his food, clothing, education, and ‘life experiences’ certainly will.

    If you are born with a genetic predisposition to alcohol, does that mean God wants you to be an alcoholic?

    The US doesn’t base it’s laws on ‘what God wants you to be.’ And it doesn’t strive to prevent spiritual harm, since to do that it would have to endorse a single form of religion over others or over none. As Bob says, you need to show some sort of harm that the state has an interest in preventing. That’s the difference between alcoholism and same sex marriage.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Speaking as a single dad, but because I was widowed not separated, I totally agree. At the time, I wasn’t even entitled to state benefits because the rules then only applied to a widow, not to a widower.

    • Kevin K

      And even then, I’d argue that the compelling state interest with regard to alcoholism are the health-related ones. The cost to the system for liver disease, accidents caused by drunk drivers and all that. An alcoholic who only drinks at home (or within walking distance)? Unless they get to end-stage liver disease, it hardly matters to the “state”.

      I worked with a guy who I never saw eat a bite of solid food, even during company events that were sit-down dinner feasts. I’m sure he ate something, but his standard “lunch” was 3 gin-and-tonics at the bar across the alley. He also worked productively right until the time of his Stage IV cancer diagnosis (most likely triggered by alcohol). And then he was gone.

      Certainly not a lifestyle I would advocate for … but the harm he did was almost solely limited to his own self. As an advocate for the decriminalization of drug use, I see this in the same vein.

  • Raging Bee

    Children raised in biological two-parent homes tend to do better and
    cause society much less trouble than children raised in other situations…

    “Other situations” is a ridiculously broad phrase that lumps together everything from remarried parents to gay adoptive parents to widows/widowers to incarcerated parents to abusive parents to ANY couple or living arrangement that doesn’t conform to their pathetically narrow “ideal” of “correct” family life. So basically that makes Frank’s overgeneralization more of a tautology — true by virtue of his own question-begging categorization.

    • I Came To Bring The Paine

      don’t forget non-gay adoptive parents 😉

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Yes, this is one that Turek himself isn’t stupid enough go miss. The only reasonable conclusion is that he’s a lying piece of shit.

    • Jennny

      Is there a citation for saying children fare better with a female mum and male dad? Anecdotally the same-sex couples I know who are raising children, be it by adoption, surrogacy or sperm donation are doing a great job. They are so committed to their little ones, they fought hard or had to jump through many hoops to get them so are determined to do the job well. In the UK press not long ago, a surrogate mum for a gay couple was so impressed by their child rearing, she said ‘Buy one get one free’ and became their surrogate for a 2nd baby free of charge!

      • MadScientist1023

        I am quite certain there is not. There have been dozens of studies into the matter, and not one has found that children raised by same-sex parents are any worse off than children raised by opposite-sex parents. Not one. Nothing has come close. The one that’s come closest to saying that says that children of parents who divorced and came out of the closet did worse than children whose parents stuck together, but that’s not remotely the same thing. All the other studies have shown that same-sex parents do as good a job or a better job than opposite sex parents.

        • Jennny

          I couldn’t agree more. As someone said to me, what every child needs is an adult, or two adults in their life who is seriously crazy about them 24/7. It can equally be grandparents or other relatives who fulfill that role and raise a secure happy child whose needs are met so they grow into well-adjusted adults. What kind of sex (or not) those adults have, is totally irrelevant.

        • MadScientist1023

          Agreed, although there is sufficient evidence to conclude kids are generally better off with 2 parents instead of 1. It’s no secret single parents have a harder time of it, and plenty of kids raised by single parents do great later in life. But if you look at the numbers, you can reasonably conclude 2 parents households are generally better for kids.

        • neenerpuss .

          2 of our greatest presidents were raised largely by single mothers.

        • MadScientist1023

          Like I said, plenty of kids raised by single parents do great later in life. It doesn’t change the fact that single parents have a harder time raising their kids right than married parents.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I can vouch for that.

        • And if there were harm in a same-sex-parents environment, to what degree is that caused by society discriminating against the family or the children?

        • MadScientist1023

          A worthwhile follow up if it were the case. Fortunately it is not the case.

  • Otto

    Pedophilia, alcoholism and homosexuality

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6keZIUJBsQ

  • Greg G.

    Children raised in biological two-parent homes tend to do better and cause society much less trouble than children raised in other situations

    versus

    Frank’s assumption that same-sex households are significantly better

    Huh?

    ETA HTML

  • Susan

    It’s just so weird. Many of us (like I do) live in countries where same sex marriage is fully implemented and has had not brought the negative impact that apologists imply it will bring.

    On the contrary, the impact is positive.

    Frank Turek isn’t making points against gay marriage.

    He’s making money repeating the same bad points that don’t seem to bear out in rel life.

    In Canada (for instance), it looks absurd.

    Why are we even talking about it?

    • Michael Neville

      In the US, as in most of Western Civilization, homophobes have lost the battle about same-sex marriage. But since it’s a hill the bigots have decided to die on, they’re still trying hard to stop it.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Why are we even talking about it?

      Because there are holy rolling fuckwit apologists like Turek in the government where I live (when the lazy bastards take their seats that is) who are fighting tooth and nail to prevent gay marriage being legalised…and if they get the right set of conditions in places where it is legal, they’ll try and change it back.

      Outing their silly nonsense at every opportunity is our duty.

      • Susan

        Outing their silly nonsense at every opportunity is our duty.

        (Sigh)

        I know. 🙁

        • Ignorant Amos

          Anno….depressing isn’t it….here in the 21st century.

    • Why are we even talking about it?

      I wish I didn’t have to.

    • Pofarmer

      You mean all other marriages didn’t spontaneously combust? Shocking, isn’t it?

  • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

    If you are born with a genetic predisposition to alcohol, does that mean God wants you to be an alcoholic? If someone has a genetic attraction to children, does that mean God wants you to be a pedophile? . . .

    If you claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient, it’s hard to reach another conclusion.

    • Otto

      Alcoholism is a gift God gave some people to overcome and be stronger….except for those people that die from it, he killed them on purpose. God doesn’t make mistakes. /s

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        Of course. Otherwise you’d have to say that God didn’t know who would be strong enough and who wouldn’t.

    • Joe

      “does that mean God wants you to be a pedophile? .”

      I think god just wants them not to get caught.

  • RichardSRussell

    Who needs straw men when we’ve got Frank Turek?

  • The “biology” argument (an appeal to nature fallacy in any case) also doesn’t preclude polygamy either.

    The difference is also, regarding theism, God could have prevented the genetic disposition there for alcoholism etc. So who says he didn’t want them acted on?

    • Greg G.

      As I point out on occasion, if masturbation is wrong, why isn’t it as difficult as tickling yourself? Perhaps tickling yourself is so objectively immoral that we cannot do it but there is nothing wrong with masturbation. I wonder if procrasturbation is wrong?

      • Because apparently God likes to test people, even knowing many will fail and go to hell. Very nice. I guess it would be too boring for him if no one ever struggled with desired for things he didn’t like or something.

      • I wonder if procrasturbation is wrong?

        Is that when you just never get around to masturbating? Finally we have a word for that!

        • Ficino

          Too much Aristotle to read. Never get around to the m thing!

      • Kevin K

        Herein I offer my usual rejoinder — I suffered from an infection (not an STD) “down there”, and my urologist ordered a three-part treatment regimen. 1) Antibiotics, 2) Warm baths, 3) Daily ejaculation — by whatever means necessary.

        Yes, I am under doctor’s orders to masturbate. Of course, that was 20 years ago … but it’s like diet and exercise, right? Never goes out of style.

        • They might make an exception for that. Maybe.

        • Kevin K

          I have also been told that “exercising” your prostate is a good way to lower your risk for prostate cancer. I am all about being healthy.

        • Greg G.

          I had read that, too, but I thought about my grandfather who was a riverboat captain who worked a month on and a month off. I questioned it until he was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

          Now I take preventative measures. Not that I didn’t have other justifications before.

        • I’ve heard that too. Also that the male G spot is there. Just another little trick by God it seems.

        • LastManOnEarth

          Why do you think God put it a bit under the depth as the length of the average erect penis?

        • Whoa…he must be gay then (or at least bi)!

        • LastManOnEarth

          Bi-curious, heteroflexible. Whatever works for you.

        • Greg G.

          I have heard that there is a bi now, gay later plan.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Jewish citation I provided about what ancient Hebrews believed about Yahweh has this interesting comment…

          The god of Genesis is bisexual: he/she is often referred to in female as well as male terms. For instance, this god is represented frequently as “mothering” or “giving birth through labor pains” to the world and humans (these passages are universally mistranslated in English as “fathering”—this god is only referred to as a “father” twice in Genesis ).

        • LastManOnEarth

          Best to not risk it.

        • Kevin K

          That’s been my strategy.

    • Kevin K

      Nor does it preclude sexual slavery, of either gender. The ancient Greeks thought it a man’s moral duty to take a young boy and mentor them. The payment for that mentoring was sexual favors.

      • Well they would say it precludes same-sex relations, consensual or not. I don’t see how heterosexual rape would be ruled out though. For centuries they held that wives couldn’t refuse sex, and some still do now.

        • Kevin K

          Yes, good point. The creepy Quiverful creeps (of which I know several families) are all about this.

          OT: One of those families I know only via their intersection with a hobby I participate in. And whenever I saw them, the wife looked … exhausted. And then he got Stage IV colon cancer and died, leaving behind a widow, who, AFAIK has no marketable skills for the workplace and 6 children.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Whaaaaa…ya mean the Lord didn’t provide? Shocked I am a tell yas all, shocked…//s

        • Kevin K

          Yeah. There was a GoFundMe … but no GoFundMe is going to be enough to provide for 6 children for the next 14 or 15 years. Her only hope is to become a concubine marry someone willing to take on that whole thing.

        • Ignorant Amos

          …marry someone willing to take on that whole thing.

          Maybe some single Church member will step up to the plate…then they can say the Lord did provide…but I doubt that, their charity doesn’t normally go that far.

        • Kevin K

          I’ve never seen an example of it … maybe in the polygamous societies in Utah and such. But the kids would have to start wearing Little House On The Prairie clothing.

        • Before the 1970s or so, marital rape was viewed as an oxymoron by most everyone.

          Yes, and in the old days she might have died from complications.

      • MadScientist1023

        Yep. And these are the men who wrote the book on democracy and paved the way for our country. They basically started Western civilization. And yet the anti-gay crowd still calls gays the destroyers of civilization.

  • JustAnotherAtheist2

    Frank renains the dumbest apologist on the market, which, as we all know, is quite a feat.

    Either that or he’s the most brilliant Poe ever, going further and further in his quest to illustrate just how brazenly ridiculous Christian rhetoric can be while still being swallowed whole.

    For his sake, I hope it’s the latter.

  • Ficino

    Thesis: the Bible never mentions lesbians. Rom 1:26 refers to female-male non-procreative sex. That’s the first interpretation evidenced in the early church. It is not about female-female. Therefore, there is no condemnation of lesbians in the Bible. Therefore, the Bible does not contain the notion of a generic “homoeroticism.”

    • Kevin K

      Actually, the affair between Ruth and Naomi contains some of the most-powerful love images in the bible.

      “Wither thou goest …” and all that.

      • neenerpuss .

        Or Jonathan and David.

        • Kevin K

          Anyone who reads those verses and comes away not believe the two slept together probably thinks Michael Jackson only slept innocently in the same bed with all of those boys.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Tis okay though, David got away with murder, literally.

          David breaks the Big ten rules of the Decalogue…and got away with it…though a baby has to die for his sinning, which a doubt was a biggie to David. So having bi-sexual antics, a misdemeanor, was wee buns.

          See, YahwehJesus hung his flag on the righteousness of David…so when David fucked up, YahwehJesus couldn’t lose face. How an omniscient god didn’t know David would antic up ahead of time, or an omnipotent god could not have covered it up better, or at least as well as his minions in the RCC…who knows? Not YahwehJesus apparently.

          The thing is, there are Christians that know this, but excuse it. Cause that’s how ya square such nonsense.

          https://bibledigging.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/david-broke-the-ten-commandments-through-adultery-and-got-away-with-it/

        • thinks Michael Jackson only slept innocently in the same bed with all of those boys.

          Wait … what??

        • Kevin K

          Ha!

    • It depends on what “natural” means–male/female or procreative/non-procreative sex. I hadn’t seen that interpretation, thanks.

  • MadScientist1023

    I find it interesting, potentially even telling, that no one appears to be defending these points. Maybe the usual anti-gay trolls have realized they don’t have a leg to stand on.

    • I wonder how long before anti-gay, anti-SSM thinking will be as frowned upon as racist thinking.

      • Ignorant Amos

        A couple of generations…like it has taken with racism?

      • MadScientist1023

        We’re pretty much there already. Anti gay views are largely considered the moral equivalent of racist views by large swaths of the population.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I wish. At least not here in the UK yet anyway.

          The whole “Support for Gay Marriage” cake debacle is an example of such.

          The Christian owners of a Northern Ireland bakery have won their appeal in the so-called “gay cake” discrimination case.

          The UK’s highest court ruled that Ashers bakery’s refusal to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory.

          The five justices on the Supreme Court were unanimous in their judgement.

          https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759

          The support Ashers Bakery received from the public here was disgusting. And it demonstrates how far we have yet to go.

          Ashers bakery’s general manager Daniel McArthur said he was delighted and relieved by the ruling.

          “I know a lot of people will be glad to hear this ruling today, because this ruling protects freedom of speech and freedom of conscience for everyone,” Mr McArthur said outside the court.

          Northern Ireland’s Attorney General John Larkin welcomed the decision.

          Refusing to bake a wedding cake for an ethnic minority because of the colour of their skin couple wouldn’t be tolerated.

        • But this is significantly different than the Colorado cake case, right? In that one, the request was simply to bake a wedding cake (which that bakery said they did) for a same-sex wedding. In this one, it was a cake with a slogan.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Of course.

          The cake was being commissioned for a civic event in Bangor, County Down, to mark International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.

          Because Northern Ireland, the only part of the United Kingdom that has not passed a law that allows Gay marriage, which in a democratic country is in itself discriminatory. And the place is full of knuckle-dragging homophobic creationist fuckwits…including the owners of Ashers. Don’t have a company that offers bespoke cakes, if your religious views are going to restrict who gets your services.

          Ashers are a Protestant Christian family run business. Would it have been discrimination if they’d accepted an order for a Roman Catholic function with some specifically Catholic slogan on the cake, then refused to provide it, because it clashed with their Protestant Christian values…ya better believe it.

          ETA missing bit in last sentence.

        • That’s an interesting twist–a RCC vs. Protestant cake clash. Only in Ireland?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Aye….it’s been done….though only as a joke prank….and the recipient took it in good humour…but I know plenty who wouldn’t have.

          https://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_620,f_auto,ar_3:2,q_auto:low,c_fill/if_h_lte_200,c_mfit,h_201/https://www.scotsman.com/webimage/1.4073335.1458124010!/image/image.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          Think there could be no such silliness over a football cake? Yep.

          And then there was the example where it wasn’t seen as a joke, but sectarian bigotry….

          Celtic birthday cake bigotry row cop demoted over Rangers ‘banter’ claim

          Detective Chief Inspector Ruth Gilfillan was one of Police Scotland’s most highly rated rising stars at the time of the incident in August 2015.

          But after a colleague complained about a sectarian remark, she has lost three ranks and faces a massive financial penalty.

        • Donalbain

          The point is that the status of the buyer was not the reason for refusal, but the nature of the item. Thus it is not a matter of discrimination.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The point is, that is the point being argued in the courts.

          The customer felt discriminated due to his sexual orientation, because the company refused to bake the cake due to the message promoting Gay marriage in the message. They refused to bake the cake because they are knuckle-dragging homophobic Christians.

          That they couldn’t tell whether the customer was a homosexual or not, is hardly a defence. Their homophobia based on religious grounds was the reason for their refusal to honor their contract. It sure looks like discrimination because they hate da Geyz to me.

          Would a racist baker be allowed to refuse to bake a cake with a message promoting an ethnic minority group? Would the refusal to bake that cake be discrimination because the refusal was based on racism?

        • Donalbain

          “Would a racist baker be allowed to refuse to bake a cake with a message promoting an ethnic minority group?”

          Probably. Yes.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Are ya sure?

          http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/1997/869/article/21

          http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2006/439/regulation/5/made

          The case is about interpretation. The first two hearing interpreted in favour of the plaintiff, the third, did not. The supreme court bought Asher’s lie.

          On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no political discrimination as well as no discrimination based on Mr Lee’s sexual orientation.

          “This conclusion is not in any way to diminish the need to protect gay people and people who support gay marriage from discrimination,” said Lady Hale.

          “It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief.

          “But that is not what happened in this case.”

          What could the ramifications be?
          Some will regard the ruling – that service providers of any religion, race or sexual orientation can refuse to endorse a message they profoundly disagree with – as a victory for freedom of expression and freedom of ideas, says BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman.

          The ruling now poses the question whether it would be lawful, for instance, for a bakery to refuse to make a bar mitzvah cake because the bakers’ owners disagreed with ideas at the heart of the Jewish religion? What about a cake promoting “the glory of Brexit”, “support fox hunting”, or “support veganism”?

          As a result of Wednesday’s ruling, there are likely to be further cases in which services are refused on the basis of beliefs held by the service providers, adds our correspondent.

          I believe the supreme court fucked up.

        • Donalbain

          by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with goods, facilities or services of the same quality, in the same manner and on the same terms as are normal in his case in relation to other members of the public or (where the person so seeking belongs to a section of the public) to other members of that section.

          They wouldn’t sell a cake that says “Support gay marriage” to anyone, so they are not breaking the law.

        • They wouldn’t sell a cake that says “Support gay marriage” to anyone, so they are not breaking the law.

          But suppose they would sell a cake that says, “Oppose gay marriage.” Then are they discriminating?

        • Donalbain

          No. Because the law is about who you sell to, not what you sell.

        • So the baker gets to decide “support gay marriage” is offensive and “oppose gay marriage” is not. I see the distinction you’re making, but it sounds like there’s discrimination in there somewhere.

        • MR

          I can only imagine the outrage and charges of “persecution” if someone refused to bake a cake that stated “Support Christian Rights.”

        • Donalbain

          Yes. The person writing the message gets to decide that.

        • Ignorant Amos

          They wouldn’t sell a cake that says “Support gay marriage” to anyone, so they are not breaking the law.

          Which opens the doors to all sorts of discrimination. As has been noticed in the article.

          The ruling now poses the question whether it would be lawful, for instance, for a bakery to refuse to make a bar mitzvah cake because the bakers’ owners disagreed with ideas at the heart of the Jewish religion? What about a cake promoting “the glory of Brexit”, “support fox hunting”, or “support veganism”?

          By stating they wouldn’t supply a particular message on cake to anyone, they get to pick and choose, that to me is discriminatory. It was the content of the message on religious homophobic grounds.

          The service being denied is a celebratory cake because of the specific message. The owners would no doubt bake a cake promoting marriage. A service that would not be withheld to other groups whose message the owners favoured.

        • In the US, the offended person must be in a protected group. At one point, homosexuals weren’t included. In the Colorado baker case, they were included, but only by state law. I don’t think they’re included in federal law.

          In other words, there would’ve been no case against the anti-gay Colorado baker if homosexuality hadn’t been a protected class.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

        • MadScientist1023

          Stuff like that still happens in the US, and the reception to it can be highly variable depending on where you are. In some parts of the country, bakers that refuse to make cakes for weddings are lauded as heroes by some. But in more liberal parts of the country (ie: anywhere urban, along the coasts, universities) even relatively mild homophobia can provoke a really strong backlash. This example comes to mind:
          https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/UC-Berkeley-campus-senator-abstains-from-a-vote-13378621.php
          The courts are another matter, but when it comes to public opinion, homophobia is often tolerated as much as racism is. That is to say: a lot in some places, but not at all in others.

        • neenerpuss .

          The issue was freedom of speech. The cake had writing on it. Had this been a 3 tier white frosted cake with no writing….it likely would have had a different verdict.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The issue was freedom of speech.

          That’s how it was pushed.

          There was no freedom of speech. If you refuse to make a cake because of censorship of a slogan, you are not supporting freedom of speech. Had it been a freedom of speech issue, the decision of the previous courts might have been upheld. The issue was discrimination on a gender issue. Homophobia.

          The cake had writing on it.

          I know. It was the meaning behind the writing that was the issue. Had the writing been about something else, the cake would’ve been made.

          One of the bakers, Karen McArthur, said she did not know Mr Lee was gay and it would not have mattered as they would not have been prepared to make a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan for anyone.

          https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233

          Seriously?

          Had this been a 3 tier white frosted cake with no writing….it likely would have had a different verdict.

          Nope…had it been a 3 tier white frosted cake with a request for one of these to be put on it…

          http://www.wecaketoppers.com/images/W469-.jpg

          …it wouldn’t have been made.

          By the way, the verdict was different…twice…at the initial court case, and the subsequent appeal.

          Had a person ordered a cake with “Black Lives Matter” slogan on it for a function been refused on the grounds that it conflicted with the religious or political views of the baker, would that be acceptable? When one’s business is supplying a service to the public, then personal opinions should be excluded. Bigots shouldn’t be in that kind of business.

        • neenerpuss .

          That is simply the difference of the US laws and the UK laws. Most US judges view the cake with writing much like a letter. Someone is making a verbal/written statement when there is writing. It becomes a different story when it is a 3 tier white frosted cake with no writing. What would be the difference between denying a gay couple cake and Woolworth’s lunch counter denying black people cake?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Well, since the particular example I’m using is in the UK, and all that.

          What would be the difference between denying a gay couple cake and Woolworth’s lunch counter denying black people cake?

          None, I’d like to think.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Then there was this from the weekend…

          Former Wales rugby star Gareth Thomas has revealed he was the victim of a homophobic attack in Cardiff on Saturday night.

          https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2018/11/18/gareth-thomas-reveals-victim-homophobic-attack-cardiff-saturday/

      • I Came To Bring The Paine

        Not soon enough…

  • neenerpuss .

    In all of human history not a single homosexual relationship has resulted in an abortion. Not one. It is the very definition of responsible procreation.

  • neenerpuss .

    There is one thing just as effective as abstinence for birth control. It is 100% effective too. Homosexuality is a great form of birth control.

    • I’m sure the fundamentalists will jump on this idea. I’ll insist that you get the credit.

      • neenerpuss .

        That’s how you know it is sharia law. All laws are supposed to be secular and have a rational government objective. They can’t fight both abortion and gay people and have it not be sharia law. IF you want to fight abortion you pretty much have to accept gay relationships.