"Right to Refuse Service" but not to Gays?

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight
Are you NOW saying it's illegal for a gay urine/poop fetish couple to request a business to create a private wedding cake with such a topping?

How about a straight urine/poop fetish couple? Does that make you feel better or kill your argument?

originally posted by: skalla
Obscene is widely defined as an act that is beyond the bounds of sensible common decency when acted out in public. A plain cake only offends asshats.

To people who think it's awesome to urinate and poop on each other, there is nothing beyond the bounds of sensible common decency about what they do.

That's the entire damn point.

When THEY are in charge of the government, and request that public schools educate YOUR CHILDREN about being understanding of people who eat poop... what are you going to think? Oh... it'll never happen because society would never go that way? Have you SEEN what pre-teens can masturbate to these days? What on EARTH do you think they are going to take for granted as "normal" when they are adults?

originally posted by: skalla
Aw you edited, meh i should have quoted you.

I changed pissing to urinating. Nothing of substance in the message changed.

originally posted by: grainofsand
How about a straight urine/poop fetish couple? Does that make you feel better or kill your argument?

It doesn't matter who they are.

If YOU don't want to create artwork that matches someone's fetish that they believe is just "who they are"... you shouldn't HAVE to upon fear of going to prison or being financially punished.

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight
What are you going to do when those you currently believe are obscene are in CHARGE of the government you once depended upon to protect you?

Like the Christian Right?

I couldn't resist

originally posted by: Annee
Like the Christian Right?

I couldn't resist

Do you think I disagree?

I'm as much against the Christian Right using the state as I am the Atheist Left.

Especially since so much of the Christian Right is really just Satan's Middle Finger.

a reply to: GetOutOfMyLight
I am saying to you that heterosexual people can also be 'urine/poop fetish' couples as well.
Do you disagree? ...or will you admit how silly your attempt at portraying gay people as having the monopoly over such practices is?

a reply to: GetOutOfMyLight
No businesses are legally required to do anything that does not discriminate on gender. (Edit- or sexual orientation)
Your example related to any consenting adults of any gender (Edit- or sexual orientation). That is why it failed as an argument.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: GetOutOfMyLight
I am saying to you that heterosexual people can also be 'urine/poop fetish' couples as well.
Do you disagree? ...or will you admit how silly your attempt at portraying gay people as having the monopoly over such practices is?

Surely you're joking? Fine... I won't call you Shirley.

Change EVERYTHING I wrote to be a heterosexual couple involved in such a fetish. The point I'm remarking on and perspective I'm offering holds. I was clearly riffing off of the "boundaries of decency" that the poster I was replying to had established... not the boundaries of humanity. The point stands whether it's two boys, two girls, boy/girl, or a hundred boys and girls on top of the cake. If a person doesn't want to make a cake topping with urinating and pooping people... they shouldn't be *forced* to upon fear of being punished financially or going to prison.

Interesting sensitivity there.

a reply to: grainofsand
Gender had nothing to do with my comments and you and I both know exactly what game you are playing. /salute

Let's be clear here: fetishes have nothing to do with being gay.

Fetishes transcend all sexual orientations and lifestyles.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality is an orientation (as is transgender).

And while were at it lifestyle is how you choose to live your life. It is not a sexual orientation.

Your fallacy is that your are now focussing on the item and the detail involved in it's design, rather than the person who you are theoretically providing a standard service to.

So suppose i'm an artist.... Lets say i have a shop for this and some one wants a portrait but insist that they have it set so they are having violent sex with the pope. Good reason for refusal should i so choose. It's the item i have an issue with.

But not serving them as they are a Satanist or have a Violent-Pope-Sex-Fetish, that's out of line. That is prejudicing the individual and i have taken up work in the public domain under the laws of the land.

But a standard portrait as that's my line of work, fine. I should be professional, suck it up and do my job instead of being an oversensitive crybaby.

a reply to: Annee
And when someone comes along and gets the courts, psychologists, and politicians to agree that their fetish is not something they choose, but they are born with?

That they *can't* UNCHOOSE feet/urine/poop/train wrecks/etc?

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight
If a person doesn't want to make a cake topping with urinating and pooping people... they shouldn't be *forced* to upon fear of being punished financially or going to prison.

The business owners in the OP were not forced to make a cake topping for people as you describe.
My my, you are overly dramatic and have added spin to the story which is your imagination alone.
That is sadly rather telling about your good self.

originally posted by: grainofsand

The business owners in the OP were not forced to make a cake topping for people as you describe.
My my, you are overly dramatic and have added spin to the story which is your imagination alone.
That is sadly rather telling about your good self.

I think this one is about a wedding venue.

But, same thing as the cake.

a reply to: skalla
You are ALL ignoring ONE THING about my point thinking that I'm in support of discrimination.

My argument is against using a person with a GUN to solve your problem.

I'm pointing out that someday... eventually someone else that you *don't* feel comfortable with is going to be in control of that person with the GUN. Then you'll go "Oh shi..." right before you think "Ohhh... that's what that obstinate asshole was talking about!"

Sexual fetish --- consenting adult partner.

Forced fetish illegal. Go to jail.

a reply to: grainofsand
Is it any more imagination than the idea someone posted earlier that if stores weren't forced to sell to homosexuals that all homosexuals would suddenly go hungry?

I'm defending your damn rights against people you don't even realize want to make you do things you don't want to do but you haven't thought through yet... despite getting crap for it.

Par for the course given what we know of history. This is why I write for people of the future, not today.

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight
a reply to: skalla
You are ALL ignoring ONE THING about my point thinking that I'm in support of discrimination.

My argument is against using a person with a GUN to solve your problem.

I'm pointing out that someday... eventually someone else that you *don't* feel comfortable with is going to be in control of that person with the GUN. Then you'll go "Oh shi..." right before you think "Ohhh... that's what that obstinate asshole was talking about!"

Then in essence you are against all laws as they all boil down to government ultimately having violence as it's last recourse. I agree with that.

Sadly, in an overpopulated world full of idiots of all persuasions, our anarchic utopia is a pipedream.

ETA: i'd like to point out that i'm obstinate bumhole too, i'll not let you have all the credit there

a reply to: skalla
I'm not aiming for Utopia. Utopia is boring. I've been there.

I'm aiming to go out pointing in the honest direction. *star for you*

a reply to: GetOutOfMyLight

Well in my utopia i can do all manner of weird #### but that's beside the point

ETA: lol, and to be fair i can, and do. i'm just smart about how i go about it, but enough of that.