Can the government compel you to provide someone a service against your will?

[Ironside]

My guess is that this type of discrimination happens quite often, but famous people generally do not have big, bushy beards, so you do not hear about it much. Even in my hippie Uni I was treated weird and got a bunch of punk comments on my beard.
My point is that if someone chooses not to serve me because they think I am a hobo because of my beard, I'll happily take my business elsewhere. Sure, I think people who think poorly of people because of their facial hair are schmucks, but it their right to be so.
People gotta stop being so sue happy.

The rules are there to prevent systematic descrimination on something you can't really change (well you can change religion, but that not normally considered easy). It's usually gender, religion, etnicity and disabillity, but can also include LGBT, transpersons and age. If worst comes to worst, you can shave, they don't have that option. One or two places might not matter much, but all of them?

Missed that.

Then the judges are technically wrong, and the case should be overturned on appeal because it sets bad precedent, that a "similar" situation is the same as an "equivalent" one.

I.E. That a non-legal ceremony is the same as a legal one.

Nah, it's rejecting the service because they are gay that's illegal, not the service itself. It would be the same decision if they choosed to not photograf them on a special holiday, a family photo etc, etc, only because they were gay and would do it for straight people.

[Vuk]

The rules are there to prevent systematic descrimination on something you can't really change (well you can change religion, but that not normally considered easy). It's usually gender, religion, etnicity and disabillity, but can also include LGBT, transpersons and age. If worst comes to worst, you can shave, they don't have that option. One or two places might not matter much, but all of them?

First of all, it may not be easy, but you can choose to not be gay. Second of all, these people do not need to, because even if in the worst case scenario that they could get no professional to photograph their ceremony, they could still have a family member or friend do it. Also, that doesn't stop them from living together. To think though that majority (never mind the entirety) of professional photographers in the area would not photograph their ceremony is unrealistic I think.

Also, about the beard, it is not as easy as you think. My paternal grandfather was Jewish and always wore a long beard. My paternal grandmother was Norwegian and her father wore a large beard. My maternal grandfather wore a large beard, my father wore a beard nearly to his waste his whole life. All my brothers wear large beards, as do many of the men living around us (due in part to the fact that there are tons of Amish around).
I grew up in a very religious (Christian) family in which the men are expected to have beards, and to say "I will cut off my beard and become an entirely different person because some snobs do not like it." is just completely unrealistic. (it was hard enough to trim it down when I went abroad and to turn it into a goatee for my job)
Not to mention I have had it since I was 16, and am used to having a beard and not used to shaving (it comes in very handy when you are working in the cold).
Also, add on to that the fact that I have no chin whatsoever and would look like a scary cartoon character without it, and you can see why it is a very unreasonable thing to just say 'cut it off!'.

[PanzerJaeger]

First of all, it may not be easy, but you can choose to not be gay.

How does one choose not to be gay? Can you explain in more detail?

Says who? There is a considerable amount of evidence suppressed by the scientific community and lobbyist groups linking homosexual sex to the spread and mutation of some of the world's most horrible diseases. What you do in the bed room doesn't stay in the bed room when you spread a disease around that kills millions. God did not create our bodies to engage in homosexual sex, and when you use it in such a way it is not intended for, there are unintended consequences.

Also, endorsing homosexuality and legitimizing it will only help it to spread. Gay people are the victims of hormonal imbalance or sexual/mental trauma usually. Being gay is not emotionally healthy, and helping spread it hurts people.
You can call me a crazy bigot all you want, but every single gay person I have ever known has been either the victim of sexual abuse (usually by a gay rapist), or been preyed upon when they were at a very emotionally vulnerable mental state, or have severe hormone imbalance. No matter what, it is not healthy. I don't think gays are evil (you have evil one and good ones, just like with straights), but I do think their life style is not emotionally or physically healthy, and I don't think it would be a good thing for society to make it seem acceptable to young people.

but for you to say that there is not a strong correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia is dishonest. Like I said, most gay people I know well have been victims of abuse when they were children (most gay celebrities I know of too). I don't think that by any stretch that all gay/bi people are pedophiles, but I do think that most pedophiles are gay/bi.

Where are you getting this from? Can you source any of it?

[Vuk]

It has no validity whatsoever. And there is absolutely no research suggesting anything you said was true with respect to disease.You have the cause and effect reversed. Gay people don't have hard lives because they are gay. They have hard lives because society generally treats them like second class citizens. And, for the record, almost without exception, the gay people I know are happy, healthy, adn successful.How many websites come up if you google "lolita" or "teen girls," all of which aimed at heterosexual men? There is no evidence to support a link between pedophilia and homosexuality.

I know you won't trust the site, but I don't think you can argue that their sources are legit.
http://www.frc.org/?i=IS01B1

Even look at this article sticking up for gays: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...-cuts-life-ex/
It states that though what the guy said was the truth in the 90's, it no longer is because we have gotten better at treating AIDs.

This dude has a point, it is basically playing in the toilet. How disgusting is it to dip your penis into fecal matter? That is something you would expect from an animal, not a human. how can that be healthy? You wonder why the gay community is so diseased...
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22Sx...osx_lifspn.htm


I know you are gonna say "Oh I cannot read those or believe them because the people writing them are Christian!", but keep in mind that they are also scientists in the field with PhDs and quote many sources you would trust to back up their arguments.
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

The list goes on and on. That is just a few from a quick Google search.

How does one choose not to be gay? Can you explain in more detail?

By not buggering men. (in the case of males) I thought that would be pretty obvious.

[Beskar]

By not buggering men. (in the case of males) I thought that would be pretty obvious.

By that logic, finding yourself not having sexual relations with women means you are not heterosexual?
I am sure you would disagree with that assertion.

Though, a famous example of some one not having sexual relations with those of the same gender even though experiencing sexual attraction is Stephen Fry.

Anyway, the definitions are pretty much as follows:

homosexual: sexual attraction to those of the same sex
heterosexual: sexual attraction to those of the opposite sex.
bisexual: sexual attraction to those of either sex.
pansexual: sexual attraction regardless of sex.
demisexual: sexual attraction based on emotional bonding. (can have preference)
asexual: no sexual attraction regardless of sex.

Not performing an act is separate does not make you "not-homo" "not-hetero" etc

[Goofball]

I know you won't trust the site, but I don't think you can argue that their sources are legit.
http://www.frc.org/?i=IS01B1

The sources may be legit, but the interpretation is extremely flawed. For example, one of the authors, in trying to argue that the gay population is only 0.5% of the population instead of the more generally accepted 10%, uses survey data from homosexuals that says a very small number of them have had only same-sex partners their whole lives. This ignores that fact the many homosexuals fight against their own sexuality at first because society treats them so badly that they want to at least give heterosexuality a try. Look at the flip side. Many heterosexuals experiment at least once in their lives with homosexual sex. Does that make them not true heterosexuals?

Even look at this article sticking up for gays: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...-cuts-life-ex/
It states that though what the guy said was the truth in the 90's, it no longer is because we have gotten better at treating AIDs.

This dude has a point, it is basically playing in the toilet. How disgusting is it to dip your penis into fecal matter? That is something you would expect from an animal, not a human. how can that be healthy? You wonder why the gay community is so diseased...
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22Sx...osx_lifspn.htm

The human mouth is one of the most unclean and bacteria-ridden parts of the body. Yet heterosexuals regularly mate it with the penis and the vagina, and the anus. Many men enjoy and engage in anal sex with women, as well. No wonder the heterosexual community is so diseased.

I know you are gonna say "Oh I cannot read those or believe them because the people writing them are Christian!", but keep in mind that they are also scientists in the field with PhDs and quote many sources you would trust to back up their arguments.
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

The list goes on and on. That is just a few from a quick Google search.




By not buggering men. (in the case of males) I thought that would be pretty obvious.

That point was nicely covered already by Tiaexz. Your arguments are based on nothing more than yout personal feelings. As with the sources you quited above, you have used the common Christian tactic: You decide what the answer is then try to make the data conform to your belief. That is not science.

[Vuk]

By that logic, finding yourself not having sexual relations with women means you are not heterosexual?
I am sure you would disagree with that assertion.

Though, a famous example of some one not having sexual relations with those of the same gender even though experiencing sexual attraction is Stephen Fry.

Anyway, the definitions are pretty much as follows:

homosexual: sexual attraction to those of the same sex
heterosexual: sexual attraction to those of the opposite sex.
bisexual: sexual attraction to those of either sex.
pansexual: sexual attraction regardless of sex.
demisexual: sexual attraction based on emotional bonding. (can have preference)
asexual: no sexual attraction regardless of sex.

Not performing an act is separate does not make you "not-homo" "not-hetero" etc

Like many psychological conditions, if you abstain from the behavior, the desire will eventually subside. That probably is not true for people suffering from hormone imbalance, but that can be treated.

Look at the flip side. Many heterosexuals experiment at least once in their lives with homosexual sex. Does that make them not true heterosexuals?

Yeah. It makes them bi. A heterosexual is someone who is only attracted to/only has willing sex with people of the opposite gender. Just like a homosexual is someone who is only attracted to/only has willing sex with people of the same gender. If you do both, then you are bi or one of the other ridiculous PC terms people come up with.

The human mouth is one of the most unclean and bacteria-ridden parts of the body. Yet heterosexuals regularly mate it with the penis and the vagina, and the anus. Many men enjoy and engage in anal sex with women, as well. No wonder the heterosexual community is so diseased.

There is a reason that sodomy was traditionally banned, and not just amongst homosexuals. (sodomy includes oral sex) Unfortunately unhealthy practices from the gay community have corrupted the straight community as well.

You decide what the answer is then try to make the data conform to your belief. That is not science.

Actually mate, he very nicely proved that studies suggesting a causal link between patterns in the brain and homosexual behavior have never been replicated or stood up to peer review. To be scientific something needs to be observable and you need to be able to replicate it.
It is funny that what you accuse Christians of doing is exactly what the pro-gay community does. They see man buggering as a human right, so they try to invent science to legitimize their unhealthy addiction.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nah, it's rejecting the service because they are gay that's illegal, not the service itself. It would be the same decision if they choosed to not photograf them on a special holiday, a family photo etc, etc, only because they were gay and would do it for straight people.

Is that explicitly stated in Court documents - because here it's illegal to refuse marriage counselling to homosexual couples.Not "because they're Gay", but because you aren't allowed to say they aren't "married".And to Montmercy: You can flap you're gums as much as you like but you need grammar for that to mean anything.

[Montmorency]

Grammar is what we're doing right now, and it changes over time.

It's not something you dictate or preserve in perpetuity.

[Papewaio]

Vuk put yourself in their shoes. Could or would you become gay so a company would provide you it's services?

[Vuk]

Vuk put yourself in their shoes. Could or would you become gay so a company would provide you it's services?

No, and I wouldn't shave my beard either. That is kind of my point though: it is not impossible, just unreasonable. There is a difference.
My point is that if a business doesn't want to serve you, you just gotta put your big boy panties on and suck it up and move on to a business that will.

[Montmorency]

My point is that if a business doesn't want to serve you, you just gotta put your big boy panties on and suck it up and move on to a business that will.

What if this creates an excessive burden on the rejected customers? Why should that be taken as a matter of course?

[Goofball]

At first I thought this was silly and an overreach of the judicial. But then I thought, how is this any different from southern lunch counters in the sixties being forced to serve blacks?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Grammar is what we're doing right now, and it changes over time.

It's not something you dictate or preserve in perpetuity.

Your shaky understanding of linguistics fails you.

When "marriage" is understood to mean "the physical joining of one man and one woman" it naturally excludes homosexuals couples, as well as un-consummated marriages. Notably, un-consummated marriages are known throughout history, and they often resulted in divorce (as opposed to consummated marriages).

The current bill passing through the British Parliament does not allow for the consummation of a homosexual union (because that it technically impossible) but instead side-steps the issue.

Now - because the meaning of the word marriage has been abandoned, and the word attached to the meaning "a union between two people who love each other, recognised by the State" we now apply a syntactical qualification, being "straight" or "gay".

Put another way - in Latin I can say "te amo" or "amo te" but in English I cannot say "I love" or "love I", the statements are meaningless. They require syntactical qualification because they lack grammar.

Now - the point in question is really very important, because laws are drafted using words, and they will be on the statute books for centuries, and you cannot re-interpret them because you don't understand what the original jurist meant.

The case in-point is that the US has had to specifically outlaw homosexual marriage because the Constitution and existing laws did not explicitly state the nature of "marriage". This was a legal absurdity, because the framers of said Laws took the understanding of the word "marriage" to intrinsically mean a heterosexual union.

But, you know, who cares right?

We can just re-interpret laws whenever we like as our taste in words changes, so "Slavery" can become "Freedom" and "Freedom" can become "Slavery" and...

Oh wait, didn't George Orwell have something to say about this?

[Montmorency]

Put another way - in Latin I can say "te amo" or "amo te" but in English I cannot say "I love" or "love I", the statements are meaningless. They require syntactical qualification because they lack grammar.

And over time, the grammar of English could change so that this is possible.

Now - the point in question is really very important, because laws are drafted using words, and they will be on the statute books for centuries, and you cannot re-interpret them because you don't understand what the original jurist meant.

Laws should not be on the book for "centuries". Would you lament the laws of Shakespeare's time (assuming any such hold-overs) because we have a different interpretation of them now? What a rigid and backwards view of the law; get a grip.

The case in-point is that the US has had to specifically outlaw homosexual marriage because the Constitution and existing laws did not explicitly state the nature of "marriage". This was a legal absurdity, because the framers of said Laws took the understanding of the word "marriage" to intrinsically mean a heterosexual union.

This is exactly why laws should not be retained for perpetuity without amendment at the least.

We can just re-interpret laws whenever we like as our taste in words changes

Or, we could update them to reflect new meanings?

My, what an idea.

Your shaky understanding of linguistics fails you.

Not seeing anything new here, just more prescriptivist rubbish...

[Montmorency]

Another thing:

We're not really talking about word definitions per se here, but specifically legal definitions.

Words broaden their meaning all the time. They go from specific origins to broad figurative application. 'A marriage of ideas', for instance.

So it's not actually the definition of marriage overall that's changing, but "marriage" as a legal and social status.

"Marriage" is already often taken to mean something like "intimate union".

Yet you would specifically keep the social-legal sense of marriage as "between man and woman", because only man and woman could be "husband and wife" in your eyes.

This is pretty much religious bigotry, just up and admit it. You don't want these upstarts in your traditional club.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And over time, the grammar of English could change so that this is possible.

That's the point, it was possible and now is not because of the loss of grammar.

Abandoning Grammar is a choice which narrows your frame of reference, it does not expand it. It is a poor parallel for you to draw.

Laws should not be on the book for "centuries". Would you lament the laws of Shakespeare's time (assuming any such hold-overs) because we have a different interpretation of them now? What a rigid and backwards view of the law; get a grip.

No - you get a grip.

Laws from Shakespeare's time need to be interpreted in their original frame of reference, granted that the practical circumstances of the day may alter how that law is applied but the wording of the Law must not be sidestepped because we have a different understanding of a particular adjective.

For example - "Malice of forethought" means "with intention to act" with regard to the Common Law definition of "murder" in the UK, it does not mean "with intent to kill" if defense lawyers could argue that it did then they could get their clients off.

If you don't like a Law you change it, ignoring it or fantastically reinterpreting it weakens the legal institutions.

This is exactly why laws should not be retained for perpetuity without amendment at the least.

I agree, but Gay-Rights activists should not have been able to use that argument. As a result you have had states pass laws restricting the rights of homosexuals. So, now instead of having to pass a Law to include homosexuals you now have to repeal a law that deliberately excludes them. Not only is this absurd, but it is proving predictable hard to do.

Or, we could update them to reflect new meanings?

Err yes - was this not obviously my point?

Not seeing anything new here, just more prescriptivist rubbish...

Learn a little about linguistics first, please, at least as much as I do.

Another thing:

We're not really talking about word definitions per se here, but specifically legal definitions.

Well - legal wording - yes.

The difficulty when the two diverge is that the people might not understand their Laws - but that's not exactly a new problem.

Words broaden their meaning all the time. They go from specific origins to broad figurative application. 'A marriage of ideas', for instance.

You've applied a rhetorical figure - one that means "the joining together of disparate ideas". The figure clearly references the heterosexual concept of marriage.

Beyond that - words fluctuate in use - there's no specific rule that says definitions broaden over time. For example, the definition of "Buxom" which originally meant "pliable" or "willing" broadened to encompass the figures of "willing" tavern maid and prostitutes, and now refers specifically to a type of figure men find desirable.

So it's not actually the definition of marriage overall that's changing, but "marriage" as a legal and social status.

What has changed is a movement of "marriage" as primarily a contractual arrangement to regulate the parentage of children to a primarily social arrangement that validates the emotional relationship between two people. Both these meanings were and are present but there has been a rapid shift in emphasis in a small number of Western Countries (and it really is a small number) in about a generation.

"Marriage" is already often taken to mean something like "intimate union".

True - but the point is this jives neither with traditional usage or with Laws as they stand prior to amendment. The UK Bill currently under consideration is just such a fudge. After it become law I will still be able to annul
my marriage if, after the ceremony, I discover that my new wife is carrying another man's child. HOWEVER, none of my Lesbian friends will be able to do the same.

How is that fair?

Yet you would specifically keep the social-legal sense of marriage as "between man and woman", because only man and woman could be "husband and wife" in your eyes.

No - I said that the legal definition of marriage is this. The laws being passed currently just tack some rights on for homosexuals. The reason for this is simple, nobody (least of all politicians) want to admit the truth, that marriage as a legal institution has effectively ceased to exist in the West. the only vestige remaining pertains to divorce (division of wealth) and death (inheritance) both of which can be more easily and cheaply resolved by writing contracts.

A Solicitor costs less than a wedding.

This is pretty much religious bigotry, just up and admit it. You don't want these upstarts in your traditional club.

Oh?

Where?

Because I happen to have an appreciation of the legal and historical context, and a lack of sentiment?

[Montmorency]

Abandoning Grammar is a choice which narrows your frame of reference, it does not expand it. It is a poor parallel for you to draw.

How is it "abandoning grammar"?

The figure clearly references the heterosexual concept of marriage.

How? Seriously, explain that one.

Beyond that - words fluctuate in use - there's no specific rule that says definitions broaden over time. For example,the definition of "Buxom" which originally meant "pliable" or "willing" broadened to encompass the figures of "willing" tavern maid and prostitutes, and now refers specifically to a type of figure men find desirable.

I just said that "words broaden their meanings all the time", not "all words always..."

***

So I take it that you fault whatever is going on in the UK for not going far enough, not because you're particularly concerned for the gays, but because legal kludges weaken the authority and coherence of the legal system.

You want a clear, concrete and widely applicable legal redefinition of marriage.

That's it?