Well, I don’t think the bible says gays are not allowed to eat, but it does say their not allowed to have sex (which is marriage implies).
I’m sure there are some special rules in the bible about wedding cakes and gays – somewhere, probably.
You don’t need to be married to fuck. Hell, you do less of it after you get married.
So what? All that explains is why these folks wouldn’t want to rent them a house, either, even if they weren’t married. Then there is the whole Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve thing.
By that logic, conservative Christians should be pro-SSM in order to reduce the total amount of gay sex in the country! 
I have long thought that conservative Christians should be pro-SSM, and reducing the amount of premarital sex going on is among those reasons. adaher pointed out another: marriage makes people more conservative, and letting the gays marry likely means siphoning off a few reliable Democratic votes (at least in the long term.) Of course, the latter is more of a “Republican” thing than a “conservative Christian” thing.
Leviticus 20:13 says they’re to put to death. I’m usually not peckish after my own death, you?
Some conservative Christians are pro-SSM. But they’re, like, from big cities and stuff.
How is gay sex more ‘condoned’ when selling a wedding cake than selling gas or groceries? If one makes you a participant surely the others must too.
So, are we to believe all other business owners are going to hell for serving gay people? Are they less pious in God’s eyes?
It just doesn’t make sense.
First of all, if you’re trying to reconcile religion and logic, you’re on the losing end of the game. But if you really don’t see how gasoline and a wedding cake differ wrt having sex, then I would suggest you are trying your damnedest NOT to understand.
You don’t understand. Conservatives would love it if gas jockeys and grocery clerks discriminated against gays too. But they dont have nearly the opportunuty to do so, because how many drivers indentify themselves as gay before they fill the tank? Wedding comanies like caterers, and county clerks, have these couples identifying themselves as gay – RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES!!:eek:
My stomach thinks my throat’s been cut.
Why have these clerks never prevented a second marriage? I understand that’s a sin.
Yes, but it isn’t “icky” and the clerks don’t spend sleepless night fantasizing about people engaged in deviant, sweaty second marriage.
Or eating shellfish, or wearing blended fabrics.
Does it have to be sweaty? I can deal with the deviant part.
Are we talking bacon-encrusted double cheeseburger with fries?
Agreed.
Honestly, I think if we are going to go down this rabbit hole, people who want to discriminate to avoid violating their religious beliefs will be able to find plenty of way to do so.
If the baker can deny the cake to the gay couple, what about this situation:
the baker is ok with SSM but one of the distributers notifies the baker that none of the products they sell for baking (flour, sugar, etc.) can be used to make wedding cakes for gay weddings for this reason.
Or what about the farmer? None of the farmer’s grain can be used to mill flour that is to be sold to bakers who sell wedding cakes to gay couples.
Tuxedo rental shops.
Bridal dress makers.
What about that gas station attendant? If the car gassing up has “Just Married” on it and two guys inside it? Can he refuse to sell gas to them then? Or even better, can he refuse to sell gas to the delivery truck transporting the wedding cake to the reception?
Denial of public services to specific groups based on religious beliefs is a pretty far stretch of the 1st Amendment.
Well, right now you can deny service to gays in some places. Had Kennedy elevated gay issues to “intermediate scrutiny”, that wouldn’t be so much of an issue. Unless you are a member of a “suspect class”, then you are SOL, so to speak, on many 14th amendment conflicting with 1st amendment issues.
But my mother’s not gay.
See, I can be deliberately obtuse too.