Public accomondation

2,504 Views | 53 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by AstroAg17
fat girlfriend
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:36a, 6/14/19

Quote:
The legal doctrine of "public accommodations" first came to prominence as a civil-rights matter in the case of racial segregation at a time when African Americans could hardly travel in much of the country as a practical matter. The exclusion of black Americans from public life, when piled on the legacy of slavery, severely circumscribed the lives and opportunities of African Americans. While there is still rank bigotry directed at homosexuals, the situation of gay Americans in the 21st century is not very much like that of African Americans in the 1940s. To accommodate the religious principles of those with traditional views of marriage in this matter requires only a trivial and largely symbolic concession: It is a lot easier to find a gay-friendly caterer in Colorado in the 21stcentury than it was to find a hotel open to African Americans in Alabama in 1937. These are not of equal moral weight.


But the point of this exercise unlike the point of the civil-rights reforms of an earlier era is not to provide for the integration of gay Americans into civil life or to enable them to organize their own affairs on their own terms and to engage in the pursuit of happiness in the way that seems best to them. Instead, the point of this harassment and it is only harassment is to bully and coerce dissidents into obedience and conformity. That "dissident baker" is a genuine political category speaks eloquently to the insanity of our times.

This is persecution, and it is unjust. It should be addressed with whatever legal and political means are necessary to bring it to a stop. And a few people in Colorado should grow the hell up.
There is now a third action being brought against Jack Phillips, the dissident baker.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/masterpiece-cakeshops-jack-phillips-persecution/

This article is making a point I've felt the need to stress for some time. Liberals aren't liberal anymore. They are the enforcers of the new civic religion. Toe the line, or be punished.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:09a, 6/14/19
I have nothing very useful to add except that he is a Lutheran and supposedly a very nice gentleman.

And, I was gonna tie dye my dogs tail, but I didn't want people to think I was trying to do a Pride Month thing cause I think rainbow tails are cute.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:23a, 6/14/19
AG
Opposed to all public accommodation laws, but that's no surprise given my views on the state. I hate what's happening to him. He's clearly being targeted. As for the liberal comment, they and conservatives really are "same same, but different". That, though, is a conversation for another board.

The relevant aspect of this story for this board would be, imo, whether it's a violation of the Christian faith to "bake the cake". I don't believe so. If I were in that situation and believed my customer to not be a believer, I'd fall on the side of making the best cake possible and having my actions be a witness to the unfathomable love of Christ. I'm sure certain people will disagree, and that's fine. I'm not saying his approach is right or wrong.
Reply Quote
1
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:37a, 6/14/19
Liberals aren't liberal anymore because liberty is not and can never be an "end." It is only a tool for other goals and pursuits.

As for the baker, he should counter sue at this point for harassment. By the way, are his cakes even that good?
Reply Quote
Dad-O-Lot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:48a, 6/14/19
AG
Do public accommodation laws mean you have to do whatever the protected person wants?

This is a real danger when groups identified by what they do rather than what they "are" become a protected class.*

Cake guy will sell all day long to anyone as long as the event being celebrated does not violate cake guys beliefs. This is discrimination against events and ideas, not persons.

He wouldn't sell a "divorce" cake to anyone.












*(an obvious exception is religion, because freedom of religion is specifically noted in the Constitution)
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
Frok
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 7:41a, 6/14/19
AG
Quote:
By the way, are his cakes even that good?


They must be FABULOUS!
Reply Quote
3
Texaggie7nine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fat girlfriend • 8:09a, 6/14/19
Michael Malice uses a good term. Evangelical Progressives.

They have become what the evangelicals of 10+ years ago were. They want to legislate their own morality. The alt-righters on here should respect that at least.
7nine
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:25a, 6/14/19
AG
As progressivism progresses, the actual inequalities they are attempting to right become smaller and smaller. To stir up effective action, the inspired outrage has to become greater and greater. Diminishing returns, last mile fog, whatever you want to call it.
Reply Quote
4
Quad Dog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dad-O-Lot • 8:36a, 6/14/19
AG
Quote:
This is a real danger when groups identified by what they do rather than what they "are" become a protected class.*
Are you suggesting that homosexuality is something that you do and isn't something that you are? Heterosexuality is definitely something I am, and not just what I do.
Reply Quote
1
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quad Dog • 8:45a, 6/14/19
AG

Quote:
Are you suggesting that homosexuality is something that you do and isn't something that you are? Heterosexuality is definitely something I am, and not just what I do.
There's no difference between doing and being. The entire idea is modernist nonsense. What we do is what we are and what we are is what we do, in a dynamic way. That being said, no single action or single attribute is the sum total of any person. The greatest sin of identity politics is persuading people otherwise.
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PacifistAg • 8:51a, 6/14/19
AG
PacifistAg said:
Opposed to all public accommodation laws, but that's no surprise given my views on the state. I hate what's happening to him. He's clearly being targeted. As for the liberal comment, they and conservatives really are "same same, but different". That, though, is a conversation for another board.

The relevant aspect of this story for this board would be, imo, whether it's a violation of the Christian faith to "bake the cake". I don't believe so. If I were in that situation and believed my customer to not be a believer, I'd fall on the side of making the best cake possible and having my actions be a witness to the unfathomable love of Christ. I'm sure certain people will disagree, and that's fine. I'm not saying his approach is right or wrong.


Could you please bake me the very best and most realistic cake of a naked woman performing a sex act on her knees for my friends bachelor party? Show the love of Christ by making her boobies especially spectacular.

OK, maybe this post is over the line, but people have different definitions on where the appropriate line is.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 8:58a, 6/14/19
AG
Quote:
OK, maybe this post is over the line, but people have different definitions on where the appropriate line is.

Agreed. Which is why I said, "I'm sure certain people will disagree, and that's fine. I'm not saying his approach is right or wrong."
Reply Quote
Quad Dog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fat girlfriend • 9:00a, 6/14/19
AG
Quote:
To accommodate the religious principles of those with traditional views of marriage in this matter requires only a trivial and largely symbolic concession: It is a lot easier to find a gay-friendly caterer in Colorado in the 21stcentury than it was to find a hotel open to African Americans in Alabama in 1937. These are not of equal moral weight.
So?
Was it acceptable to have a small number of open hotels in 1937 Alabama? No it wasn't.
Was it acceptable to have a decent number of open hotels in the following years while having some closed hotels still around? It probably was at the time, but in hindsight it wasn't acceptable.
Is it acceptable to have a decent number of gay-friendly caterers while having some unfriendly still around? That's what this debate is about and some are going to answer yes and some are going to answer no. I don't think you can directly compare these two things, but saying something like "they are welcome to go across the treat to the one store in town that serves their type" isn't acceptable.

Why do "those with traditional views of marriage" deserve to be accommodated more than those who have a different view of marriage?
Reply Quote
1
Quad Dog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 9:04a, 6/14/19
AG
I agree with that. And it leads me to a separate rant that the phrase you hear all the time around this topic: "love the sinner, but hate the sin" is bunk and doesn't work because you can't separate the two. But that's probably a discussion for another time.
Reply Quote
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:07a, 6/14/19
AG
I do hope he doesn't resort to lawsuits against those who are harassing him. He's a follower of Christ, so I'd hope he blesses those who persecute him, returns evil with good, turns the other cheek, loves his enemies, and if they sue him for his shirt then he gives them his coat as well.
Reply Quote
2
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:11a, 6/14/19
AG
As St Augustine said about 1,600 years ago, our hearts are wired for God and therefore will remain restless until they rest in God. Nothing in this world - neither sex, money, pleasure, power, esteem nor recognition - will ever satisfy the hard-wired longing of pur hearts, other than God. Sadly, in our so-called "post-Christian" world, more and more people are jettisoning God, but because of our hard wiring we will always seek to fill the empty space with something that we hope will satisfy the longing. Sadly, for many, the filler of choice is government power wielded in a crusade to enforce anything OTHER than traditional morality or natural law. It takes many forms such as radical environmentalism or socialism or some other ism that it's proponents have "faith" in because our hard-wiring leads all of us to put our faith in something.

This is all nothing more than the loss of a transcendent point of reference, which is why we are slowly but surely sliding into bizarro world.
Reply Quote
BlackGoldAg2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quad Dog • 9:11a, 6/14/19
AG
Quad Dog said:
Quote:
To accommodate the religious principles of those with traditional views of marriage in this matter requires only a trivial and largely symbolic concession: It is a lot easier to find a gay-friendly caterer in Colorado in the 21stcentury than it was to find a hotel open to African Americans in Alabama in 1937. These are not of equal moral weight.
So?
Was it acceptable to have a small number of open hotels in 1937 Alabama? No it wasn't.
Was it acceptable to have a decent number of open hotels in the following years while having some closed hotels still around? It probably was at the time, but in hindsight it wasn't acceptable.
Is it acceptable to have a decent number of gay-friendly caterers while having some unfriendly still around? That's what this debate is about and some are going to answer yes and some are going to answer no. I don't think you can directly compare these two things, but saying something like "they are welcome to go across the treat to the one store in town that serves their type" isn't acceptable.

Why do "those with traditional views of marriage" deserve to be accommodated more than those who have a different view of marriage?
This is where in my mind this debate goes off the rails. Most like to focus on what level of discrimination is or isn't acceptable. In my view, a better use of time would be focusing on what is and is not public accommodation. A hotel and a restaurant are public accommodations because they offer a general service to the public at large. In the case of this baker, he is not withholding a service he normally offers to the public. The public service is selling pre-made or pre-designed pastries. In the case of catering for a private event, he is doing a private contract with that individual for a specific, non-public service. He should be able to refuse that for any reason or no reason, much like a restaurant could tell someone no if they order something off menu. Now, if he was telling them, I won't sell you these cupcakes off the shelves because you are gay, now we are talking about the type of discrimination that was fought in the civil rights movement. What is happening here is we are saying the government should be able to force a person to enter into a contract relationship with another person for a specific individual purpose.
Reply Quote
6
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:26a, 6/14/19
My thoughts on this are largely political, not theological, so I am not sure they belong on this thread.. perhaps this is slightly philosophical..


I agree with the "what is public accommodation" aspect. This case was never about cupcakes on the counter, the couple had bought plenty of items. This was about contact artistic labor.

The thought of the state or individuals being able to mandate that someone must perform their art with no ability to refuse is atricious.

People can be atrocious and refuse their art to anyone for any reason, but if the state is forcing people to work against their will.... there is a word for that.
Reply Quote
1
Frok
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:30a, 6/14/19
AG
Quote:
"love the sinner, but hate the sin" is bunk and doesn't work because you can't separate the two


Maybe on a new thread but I disagree. You absolutely can. My sin is not who I am.

My kids sin against me all the time. I hate it when they do that but I love them so much that nothing they do will change that.

The problem is not the phrase or the concept, the problem is people say they are loving the sinner and hating the sin when they really are hating the sinner and the sin.
Reply Quote
4
Dad-O-Lot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quad Dog • 9:30a, 6/14/19
AG
Quad Dog said:
Quote:
This is a real danger when groups identified by what they do rather than what they "are" become a protected class.*
Are you suggesting that homosexuality is something that you do and isn't something that you are? Heterosexuality is definitely something I am, and not just what I do.
That is exactly what I am suggesting.

There is no subjective method to "prove" someone's sexuality. None. The closest thing is what they do.

Archaeologist cannot inspect someone's physical remains and determine their sexuality. It is not inherent in their physical being.

How would one prove in a court of law, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what their "sexuality" was or is?
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
Reply Quote
1
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to swimmerbabe11 • 9:32a, 6/14/19
AG

Quote:
The thought of the state or individuals being able to mandate that someone must perform their art with no ability to refuse is atricious.

People can be atrocious and refuse their art to anyone for any reason, but if the state is forcing people to work against their will.... there is a word for that.
Yep. I'd take it even further and say that any prohibition against private sector discrimination, well-intentioned as such prohibition may be, is an affront to the principles of private property. Forcing people to be nice, at the point of a gun, may get people to do "right" but is doing "right" out of fear really what we want? I'd much rather get people to do "right" because we reason with them and get them to understand it's the "right" thing to do. One changes behavior. The other changes hearts.
Reply Quote
1
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dad-O-Lot • 9:34a, 6/14/19
AG

Quote:
There is no subjective method to "prove" someone's sexuality. None. The closest thing is what they do.
Are you saying innate attraction is "what they do"? I know several gay Christians who are celibate. They are still homosexual, regardless of whether it's acted upon or not.
Reply Quote
Dad-O-Lot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:34a, 6/14/19
AG
Also, you can change what you "do", you can't change what you "are".

People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
Reply Quote
Dad-O-Lot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PacifistAg • 9:36a, 6/14/19
AG
PacifistAg said:

Quote:
There is no subjective method to "prove" someone's sexuality. None. The closest thing is what they do.
Are you saying innate attraction is "what they do"? I know several gay Christians who are celibate. They are still homosexual, regardless of whether it's acted upon or not.
attraction is wholly subjective and should never be used for legislative purposes.

How would someone "prove" their innate attraction?

It is (or should be) irrelevant to any legislation.
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
Reply Quote
Dad-O-Lot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PacifistAg • 9:38a, 6/14/19
AG
PacifistAg said:

Quote:
There is no subjective method to "prove" someone's sexuality. None. The closest thing is what they do.
Are you saying innate attraction is "what they do"? I know several gay Christians who are celibate. They still consider themselves homosexual, regardless of whether it's acted upon or not.
FIFY

Homosexuality is in one's personal, subjective identification. Perhaps I could clarify that their actions typically reveal their personal, subjective, identification.
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
Reply Quote
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dad-O-Lot • 9:40a, 6/14/19
AG
Dad-O-Lot said:
PacifistAg said:

Quote:
There is no subjective method to "prove" someone's sexuality. None. The closest thing is what they do.
Are you saying innate attraction is "what they do"? I know several gay Christians who are celibate. They are still homosexual, regardless of whether it's acted upon or not.
attraction is wholly subjective and should never be used for legislative purposes.

How would someone "prove" their innate attraction?

It is (or should be) irrelevant to any legislation.
I'm opposed to legislation. The point is that action or not, it doesn't change the fact that they are homosexual. One isn't required to act on an attraction in order for the attraction to be very real.
Reply Quote
Dad-O-Lot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PacifistAg • 9:42a, 6/14/19
AG
PacifistAg said:
Dad-O-Lot said:
PacifistAg said:

Quote:
There is no subjective method to "prove" someone's sexuality. None. The closest thing is what they do.
Are you saying innate attraction is "what they do"? I know several gay Christians who are celibate. They are still homosexual, regardless of whether it's acted upon or not.
attraction is wholly subjective and should never be used for legislative purposes.

How would someone "prove" their innate attraction?

It is (or should be) irrelevant to any legislation.
I'm opposed to legislation. The point is that action or not, it doesn't change the fact that they are homosexual. One isn't required to act on an attraction in order for the attraction to be very real.
Public accommodation laws are legislation.

Using wholly personal, subjective identifications as criteria for public accommodation laws is wrong.
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
Reply Quote
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dad-O-Lot • 9:42a, 6/14/19
AG
Dad-O-Lot said:
PacifistAg said:

Quote:
There is no subjective method to "prove" someone's sexuality. None. The closest thing is what they do.
Are you saying innate attraction is "what they do"? I know several gay Christians who are celibate. They still consider themselves homosexual, regardless of whether it's acted upon or not.
FIFY

Homosexuality is in one's personal, subjective identification. Perhaps I could clarify that their actions typically reveal their personal, subjective, identification.
The FIFY is entirely unnecessary. They are still homosexual, regardless of whether it's acted upon or not. That their actions typically reveal their innate attraction doesn't mean it always does. The attraction is there regardless of their actions.
Reply Quote
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dad-O-Lot • 9:44a, 6/14/19
AG
Dad-O-Lot said:
PacifistAg said:
Dad-O-Lot said:
PacifistAg said:

Quote:
There is no subjective method to "prove" someone's sexuality. None. The closest thing is what they do.
Are you saying innate attraction is "what they do"? I know several gay Christians who are celibate. They are still homosexual, regardless of whether it's acted upon or not.
attraction is wholly subjective and should never be used for legislative purposes.

How would someone "prove" their innate attraction?

It is (or should be) irrelevant to any legislation.
I'm opposed to legislation. The point is that action or not, it doesn't change the fact that they are homosexual. One isn't required to act on an attraction in order for the attraction to be very real.
Public accommodation laws are legislation.

Using wholly personal, subjective identifications as criteria for public accommodation laws is wrong.
Yes, I know they're legislation. You must have missed where I said I oppose public accommodation laws. If a bakery wants to discriminate against Christians, blacks, LGBT, foreigners, etc that should be their right to do so. Whether it's morally right is a different question.
Reply Quote
Dad-O-Lot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:46a, 6/14/19
AG
I don't think you are getting the point.

They cannot prove their sexuality.

Their sexuality is/should be irrelevant.

A baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. That is considered a violation against public accommodation laws as being discriminatory against homosexuals. The truth is, the baker won't bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, even if both of the people in the wedding were heterosexual and were just getting married for financial reasons.

Their actual sexuality is irrelevant precisely because it is subjective and cannot be truly "proven".

Public accommodation laws for subjective criteria is ridiculous.
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
Reply Quote
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dad-O-Lot • 9:55a, 6/14/19
AG

Quote:
Public accommodation laws for subjective criteria is are ridiculous.
FIFY

But since you seem hung up on the "subjective" nature of it, the baker is also discriminating on subjective reasons because he cannot prove in a court of law that he, in fact, has a faith in Christ Jesus. A lot of "subjectiveness" going around.

I'd rather just get Caesar out of this altogether and let the invisible hand of the market to work. If enough people don't like that he discriminates, then his business will wither away. If there is a large enough demand for baked goods for (insert group here), then businesses will arise to meet that demand.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Star Wars Memes Only
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 9:58a, 6/14/19
k2aggie07 said:

Quote:
Are you suggesting that homosexuality is something that you do and isn't something that you are? Heterosexuality is definitely something I am, and not just what I do.
There's no difference between doing and being. The entire idea is modernist nonsense. What we do is what we are and what we are is what we do, in a dynamic way. That being said, no single action or single attribute is the sum total of any person. The greatest sin of identity politics is persuading people otherwise.


Certainly those two words have multiple meanings which are different from each other. Even when they can be used synonymously they have quite different connotations. Conjugations of the word "to be" when applied to a person can connote something inherent about that person, which I don't think "doing" can. Doing is typically applied to some kind of transient action. You can be gay without doing anything. You can bake a cake without being a baker in the "I'm inherently a baker" sense.

TLDR: You don't have to literally **** moms to be a mother****er.
Reply Quote
4
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Star Wars Memes Only • 10:18a, 6/14/19
AG
No doubt, but don't miss the nuance here. Modernism tends to want to separate people's actions from their being, to compartmentalize. The point I'm making is that if you **** moms, you are a mother****er. Only a mother****er ****s moms. What a person is and what a person does are inseparable. The concept of being without action is empty - you can't simply "be". Being is action.
Reply Quote
1
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:30a, 6/14/19
AG

Quote:
The point I'm making is that if you **** moms, you are a mother****er. Only a mother****er ****s moms.
Does this include my wife, who is the mother of our children?
Reply Quote
3
Quad Dog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dad-O-Lot • 10:33a, 6/14/19
AG
PacifistAg beat me to it, but all your arguments that sexuality can't be proven could also apply to proving someone's Christianity. I'll also point out that in the same post you argue that sexuality is irrelevant, but it is also relevant to the cake baker. If some archaeologist can't determine someone's sexuality, then they can't determine someone's religion.
Trying to think about proving some of these things I am in the court of law. I know very little about law besides what you see in tv/movies, but I think it could be done. I've got witnesses to my marriage to a woman, paperwork from a state government, and witnesses to 15 years of a monogamous relationship with a woman. Similarly, I have a degree from a state institution naming me an engineer, 15 years worth of paperwork with that as my job title, and witnesses to me performing those duties. Also, I have paperwork documenting membership in a church and witnesses to my presence there.

Maybe someday we can revisit this conversation if technology can ever find some genetic marker for a tendency towards homosexuality.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.