Gay Marriage? Hell Yeah or Hell No?

Actually, I don't know much of the details about the Oregon case other that the florists lost the discrimination case. My experience with discrimination cases is the are difficult to prove so usually the discrimination is worse than it sounds on paper. I say that after years of trying to document microagressions that most of the time it is easier to just let it go and let someone be a discriminating a*****e to you because it's not worth the fight.
If I could actually have something big enough to stand up in court, you bet I'd be there. Even a long list and patterns of microagressions can still be ignored. Often it really is like the person is just gas lighting the person/people they are discriminating against. Gas lighting is so hard to prove, that's why it gets used against people so much.

I think that a lot of that ( ) is mostly reasonable,

I fully agree that I would not want someone doing anything for my wedding if I knew that they didn't like me.

But, if I may, let's take a closer look at one part of what you wrote: The florist in Oregon had sold flowers to a gay couple for a number of years. The florist knew they were gay but that was not a problem. However, when they were asked to supply the flowers for the gay couples wedding they refused because of their religious beliefs."


In terms of discrimination that doesn't really pass the proverbial sniff test.

They sold flowers to a gay couple for a number of years. So, they were supporting openly gay people for years, AND making money off of them. Presumably their religion was against homosexuality, but not enough to stop them from making money. In the bible, Jesus has some pretty stern opinions about this sort of thing.

Now, lets take out the homosexual part and insert another minority group. Pick one: Asian, Arabic (either muslim or christian), Jewish, Black, Hispanic....or another religious group....Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Buddhist.... pick virtually any other group and insert them into the equation.

Deal_With_It, your point about not having someone at your wedding that doesn't like you remains valid.

On the other hand, if a florist had been selling you flowers for years, wouldn't you think that they liked you at least a little?

And, what if the florists opted out of providing flowers to a Jewish wedding, African-Heritage like wedding, some sort of cultural Asian wedding, after having sold flowers to these groups for years....?

Their defense falls apart quite quickly.

I've been to quite a few weddings... and frankly, I don't ever remember having the florist, or the baker attend the ceremony, or the reception.

Usually the florist comes by before the wedding, sets up the flowers, and leaves, then the wedding happens, and while the wedding is happening, the baker is at the reception hall dropping off the cake. Then the baker leaves and people arrive for the reception.

So, in a literal sense, neither the florist or the baker is participating in the actual ceremony at all. They're simply providing a service at the venue before the ceremony begins.

I'll put it like this, should gays be able to be legally married under american laws? I see no reason why they shouldn't, honestly I find it odd it didn't happen sooner. Do I in the grand scheme of things view gay marriage as legitimate as a marriage between a heterosexual couple? No.
From my personal perspective, I don't consider homosexual behavior to be healthy, or in any way equal to heterosexual behavior. From my political perspective, I don't see any reason they would deny a gay couple the same benefits as a heterosexual couple, although I don't think any church who's doctrine directly conflicts with homosexuality should be forced to perform the ceremony.
So basically, as far as I'm concerned, gay marriage isn't really a concern.
If people wanna sign a document saying they are officially recognized as a married couple, I say let them, it ultimately doesn't really make much of a difference.
My first comment really was enough said to tell the truth, talking to people who believe differently about certain topics is generally a waste of time.
A post of 2,000+ words can usually be replaced with something as simple as "you're wrong, and you're too ignorant to understand why", and it usually has the same effect.

Over all your explanation seems reasonable to me.

Of course that is just my opinion.

I don't go around spewing hate, even if I disagree with people, there's no point in being right if you're blinded with a deranged hate. I'd rather be able to have a civil conversation about differing opinions, as long as neither opinion is ignorant, or born of hate.