Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Heterosexual sexuality is often not a "defining characteristic" because it is the norm.

We define ourselves by our heterosexual status all the time:

1) Holding hands with my wife in public.
2) Sending her flowers at work.
3) Wedding/Couple picture at the desk at work.
4) Talk to our coworkers about what we did this weekend.
5) Ask our coworker "How's the wife/husband"

We make definitive declarations of our heterosexuality all the time, but like you said nobody really notices them anymore because it's "normal".

While I don't consider any of those 5 "asserting my heterosexuality," but then again, I have three photos on my desk: one of me and my wife, one of me and my work team, and one of me and my (male) best friend.

I did think about that "normalcy" part when I was typing my response, particularly in regards to skin color.

I probably wouldn't put "white" in my list of top 5 "defining characteristics," but I know all of my black friends would probably put "black" in their top 5.

So I can see that.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Heterosexual sexuality is often not a "defining characteristic" because it is the norm.

We define ourselves by our heterosexual status all the time:

1) Holding hands with my wife in public.
2) Sending her flowers at work.
3) Wedding/Couple picture at the desk at work.
4) Talk to our coworkers about what we did this weekend.
5) Ask our coworker "How's the wife/husband"

We make definitive declarations of our heterosexuality all the time, but like you said nobody really notices them anymore because it's "normal".

While I don't consider any of those 5 "asserting my heterosexuality," but then again, I have three photos on my desk: one of me and my wife, one of me and my work team, and one of me and my (male) best friend.

I did think about that "normalcy" part when I was typing my response, particularly in regards to skin color.

I probably wouldn't put "white" in my list of top 5 "defining characteristics," but I know all of my black friends would probably put "black" in their top 5.

So I can see that.

Similarities are usual not defining characteristics, but differences. Most people are heterosexual. Most people in america are white. would that be defining characteristics, no because it's the norm.

 Frazzled wrote:

I gave you the exact quote you used. You seem to think besmirching a large portion of the human population seems to be ok.

Whoa! Slow down there skippy, this is a family friendly website, there will be no smirching going on around here!

We mark our cars with bright colors and tie cans to them to make noise so that everyone can know about our heterosexuality.

We take out ads in newspapers to declare that we are going to put our penis in that vagina for a very long time.

We use sport events and their score boards to ask our partner for a lifelong commitment of heterosexual intercourse.

We are very "in your face" about our heterosexuality.

 Frazzled wrote:

 iproxtaco wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Clearly you don't understand what you yourself typed. Maybe you should have a conversation with yourself before you allow yourself to type such bigoted statements. Maybe you should remind yourself that if this continues you're going to get a good talking to.

All I want is for you to answer a single question. I didn't think that would be a difficulty, but apparently I was mistaken. Something we have in common.

I gave you the exact quote you used. You seem to think besmirching a large portion of the human population seems to be ok.

What portion of the population to think I'm 'besmirching'? I can guarantee it's not the portion I'm really 'besmirching'.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I'm still not sure how tying some flowers together, or making a cake and putting two blokes on the top, or two women on the top is different from serving two men in a bar, or cutting the hair of two women, or indeed any other creative or non creative service.

Unless they are asking for a flower arrangement or cake to take the form of something nsfw (which is an entirely possible request from a straight couple), I'm not seeing grounds for refusing a same sex couple...

It's a big difference for people involved. First off is time. Serving a gay couple at a restaurant will last an hour or two at most, with it not being your only duty during that time. Doing flowers for a gay wedding is much more involved, taking hours over a period of weeks, with it often your only focus. Scond, people eat because they are hungry, adn they like your food. Peopel hire creative or professional contractors to perform personal projects, which often are expressive. doing flowers for a gay wedding helps show how two people feel. I can see a person not wanting to endorse, even implicitely, something they disapprove of.

The bigger issue is simply freedom of contract, which is an abuse topic when referring to wage earners and the like, but a genuine right for freelancers.

But, I"m more sensitive to this issue because I'm a professional, albeit not in private practice. I would not want to be told, as a lawyer, that I have to represent a client on an issue I find morally offensive.

 d-usa wrote:
We mark our cars with bright colors and tie cans to them to make noise so that everyone can know about our heterosexuality.

We take out ads in newspapers to declare that we are going to put our penis in that vagina for a very long time.

We use sport events and their score boards to ask our partner for a lifelong commitment of heterosexual intercourse.

We are very "in your face" about our heterosexuality.

I guess it's a perspective thing. We did none of these. I actually think they're all really tacky and "look at me."

But I can understand the argument, and I can understand how as a white, heterosexual male I wouldn't notice some of those things.

 Polonius wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I'm still not sure how tying some flowers together, or making a cake and putting two blokes on the top, or two women on the top is different from serving two men in a bar, or cutting the hair of two women, or indeed any other creative or non creative service.

Unless they are asking for a flower arrangement or cake to take the form of something nsfw (which is an entirely possible request from a straight couple), I'm not seeing grounds for refusing a same sex couple...

It's a big difference for people involved. First off is time. Serving a gay couple at a restaurant will last an hour or two at most, with it not being your only duty during that time. Doing flowers for a gay wedding is much more involved, taking hours over a period of weeks, with it often your only focus. Scond, people eat because they are hungry, adn they like your food. Peopel hire creative or professional contractors to perform personal projects, which often are expressive. doing flowers for a gay wedding helps show how two people feel. I can see a person not wanting to endorse, even implicitely, something they disapprove of.

The bigger issue is simply freedom of contract, which is an abuse topic when referring to wage earners and the like, but a genuine right for freelancers.

But, I"m more sensitive to this issue because I'm a professional, albeit not in private practice. I would not want to be told, as a lawyer, that I have to represent a client on an issue I find morally offensive.

Also a gay couple at a restaurant eating are just two people eating. The wedding is what is violative of their religious concepts.

 cincydooley wrote:

 iproxtaco wrote:
That is a good analogy in many ways. My contention to it is that sexuality is an issue people feel strongly enough about that it interferes with their ability to separate someone's sexual preference from the person themselves. I also think that someone's sexuality is a defining feature of who someone is. I don't think you can separate the two. I don't think you should.

I think that an interesting assertion. Quite frankly, I think sexuality is only a "defining feature" for homosexuals (gays? Which word are we supposed to use here). I can't say my sexual orientation would be in the top 5 things I'd list about myself if you' were asking about my "defining features..."

I think you only see that with really butchy lesbians and super flamboyant gay men. I have some gay friends that aren't "outwardly gay" that I question whether they'd use their sexuality as a "defining feature," too. I actually might ask them.

That was one of the things I really didn't get about that "kiss ins" that happened during the Chik-Fil-A boycotts. Are straight people making out at fast food joints all across the nation and I just dont know about it?

Maybe that was an overstatement. I would say, like others have said, that a gay person's sexuality probably defines them more than a straight person's. That's thanks to society and culture more than the nature of homosexuality.

 d-usa wrote:
We mark our cars with bright colors and tie cans to them to make noise so that everyone can know about our heterosexuality.

We take out ads in newspapers to declare that we are going to put our penis in that vagina for a very long time.

We use sport events and their score boards to ask our partner for a lifelong commitment of heterosexual intercourse.

We are very "in your face" about our heterosexuality.

Yeah but these days homosexual people can do all of that too.

Except in Arizona.

 Polonius wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I'm still not sure how tying some flowers together, or making a cake and putting two blokes on the top, or two women on the top is different from serving two men in a bar, or cutting the hair of two women, or indeed any other creative or non creative service.

Unless they are asking for a flower arrangement or cake to take the form of something nsfw (which is an entirely possible request from a straight couple), I'm not seeing grounds for refusing a same sex couple...

It's a big difference for people involved. First off is time. Serving a gay couple at a restaurant will last an hour or two at most, with it not being your only duty during that time. Doing flowers for a gay wedding is much more involved, taking hours over a period of weeks, with it often your only focus. Scond, people eat because they are hungry, adn they like your food. Peopel hire creative or professional contractors to perform personal projects, which often are expressive. doing flowers for a gay wedding helps show how two people feel. I can see a person not wanting to endorse, even implicitely, something they disapprove of.

The bigger issue is simply freedom of contract, which is an abuse topic when referring to wage earners and the like, but a genuine right for freelancers.

But, I"m more sensitive to this issue because I'm a professional, albeit not in private practice. I would not want to be told, as a lawyer, that I have to represent a client on an issue I find morally offensive.

Is it wrong if I really only a problem with the restaurant but I don't really find anything wrong with the cake-maker or flower arranger (yeah I know bad terms just can't think of their proper names at the moment)?

Arizona governor shoots down bill

Well, duh. It was a horrible, stupid piece of work, put forth by hateful, stupid people.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why would a corporation need this?

My guess would be that the CEO doesn't like gay people.

 Polonius wrote:
But, I"m more sensitive to this issue because I'm a professional, albeit not in private practice. I would not want to be told, as a lawyer, that I have to represent a client on an issue I find morally offensive.

But the people know what is best for you, comrade!

Da Comrade Seaward!!!





Edit

Added "!!!!"

 Frazzled wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
the law provides an affirmative defense, in both civil and criminal cases, of religious belief when refusing service.

That's been on the books for a while, what this law actually did was allow corporations and other legal persons to claim that defence. Previiously only natural persons and religious organziations could claim it.

Why would a corporation need this?

Small businesses are corporations, too, like the one in New Mexico who got sued for being unwilling to provide a cake to a gay wedding.

Corporations don't have morals. People have morals. If you incorporate, you have to take the bad with the good. You can't just excluding business based on religious grounds.

 Frazzled wrote:
Corporations don't have morals. People have morals. If you incorporate, you have to take the bad with the good. You can't just excluding business based on religious grounds.

Aren't corporations people too?

 Seaward wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
But, I"m more sensitive to this issue because I'm a professional, albeit not in private practice. I would not want to be told, as a lawyer, that I have to represent a client on an issue I find morally offensive.

But the people know what is best for you, comrade!

Except in Russia, comrade...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/12/vladimir-putin-defends-russia-anti-gay-conservatism