Supporters start push to allow same-sex marriage in Oregon

@Reeldeal101 @brendan I am far more comfortable accepting that you oppose self-harm in all its myriad forms; it's more consistent and believable.

While a lot of people have issue with hating, it's not my main point - personal beliefs are personal beliefs.  I don't oppose the hating per se, but rather when it becomes active.  I guess the best example I could give is my own personal feelings about abortion - I loathe it.  But I would never vote against a woman's right to choose that -- my personal beliefs are not always my political beliefs.

@brendan Ok, listen..... First, I appreciate that you are far above most of the advocates for SSM that I have spoken with, both intellectually and reasonably.  That being said, I am not an advocate of homosexuality in any way.  Like I have said, that is a personal choice.  I do NOT hate any person because they are gay.  That would be just dumb.  I AM an advocate against ANY choice that ANY person makes to do harm in ANY way to themselves.  If I weren't, that would kind of defeat the purpose of me being a physician, would it not?  That's all.  I am not opposed to gay marriage itself.  I fear that it may be an open door that will contribute to increased health issues.  That is all.  I appreciate your comments.

 @Reeldeal101  @Festivus "If a person has to be involved in voting for this or against this every so often, are they not affected by it?"

This applies to any legislative action; also it is a choice, we're not Australia where voting is mandatory. (And judging by voter turnout over the last decade, it is clearly a choice)

 

"If a person lives in the community, and is a physician that has to care for issues dealing with gay men and their sexual activities, are they not involved and affected by this?"

What do you do when it's a straight woman with these same problems?  Do you not treat suicides? (Note: There are things that happen like cancer that can be no fault of your own; I presume your point is someone making a choice to possibly damage themselves, i.e. a smoker getting cancer rather than from radon in their basement).  I'd presume you're against smokers getting married as well -- it's a similar choice.  Heck, I made bad dietary choices and have a stent now -- would you not want to tend to me, because I made that choice?  I'd take a stab my atherosclerosis is far more damaging and life-threatening than rectal issues.

Do you approve of SSM for men who only do oral, or do blow jobs cause damage too?  Despite what people think, many gay men do NOT do anal; many are very oral.

What about straight men who love their prostate getting massaged?  Or enjoy being pegged by their wife?  We allow them to get married.  (I know, one of my friends enjoys this very much, and he's nowhere near homosexual in anyway and he was allowed to get married in Oregon -- in fact, he's a fundamentalist Christian)

 

 

"If a person does not agree with the gay lifestyle, are they not obligated to succumb to the whims of these individuals for fear of repercussions due to discrimination?"

No different than succumbing to a political choice, a religion or marital status.

 

Insofar as SSM is concerned, how many gay men do you know that "save themselves" for marriage, and don't have pre-marital sex? In general, marriages do not encourage sex; it simply makes it moral in some people's eyes.  The idea that people *won't* have sex, because they can't get married is pretty ludacris in today's world.  Marriage and sex, while showing correlation, are independent variables, just as sex and love are.

 

I'm going to take a stab you're a libertarian (as opposed to Libertarian).

 

 @Sundowner  Ok, thanks for the update.  I regret nothing!  ;)

 @badcat  @Festivus  @Bdou He self-deleted.  Nothing of interest but his fear.  Although he DID say he'd shoot any guy who approached him in what he considered a sexual way.  Then he threatened Festivus....same ol' same ol'.  

 @Yukon Cornelius  @Jenni In every state, marriage is defined as a civil contract.

 @Sundowner  @Janusfree The term lesbo's is merely short for lesbians, unlike Mr. Klein, they choose to hide their names and faces, names are not an option. Laugh it off to lazy typing, like I do. Immature? Perhaps, I can live with it.

  They weren't "words to that effect" Mr. Klein clearly spoke on the Lars show,  he stated he doesn't do same sex weddings. He does not offer same sex wedding service to ANYONE, how is that discrimination? Truth is, I personally would have sold them a cake without question, but thats why I was able to retire in my early 50's too. The bottom line and feeding my family is more important to me than any organized religious sect ever was, but thats just me. I, personally, don't believe there ever was a wedding planned. As this fiasco unravels and bits of information filter out, this is a scam and nothing more. This "cake incident" supposedly happened in Dec., here we are in February and this faux "marriage" is still in the works? How convenient this same sex marriage issue "just happens" to come out on the tail of this fiasco. Coincidence? I think not. Mr. Klein is obviously the victim of a couple of patsies strung along by the queer agenda and nothing more. IMO, the terrorist tactic's employed by these two "women" if you will, and their handlers, is a prime example of what to expect in the future if their allowed to get away with it.

  Frankly, I'm not queer or religious, I am against same sex marriage on moral grounds alone. While sexual orientation is in fact a protected class, that already makes them equal under the constitution. Granting them the right to marry is CLEARLY giving them special rights, period.   

 @Janusfree Before I say anything else, using terms like "lesbo's" doesn't further your argument -- it makes you sound immature, IMO.  I absolutely believe he's telling the truth based on words I heard him say on Lars Larson.  https://soundcloud.com/thelarslarsonshow/baker-aaron-klein-refused-to.  He said he told them "We don't make same-sex wedding cakes" or words to that effect.  So there's no "he said/she said".  As for the amount of time it's taking to resolve this, he received a letter from the State asking his side of the story.  We've no idea how long it took him to complete the paperwork and submit it.  And once received, there's more involved than merely reading what he said/she said and wham-bam making a decision.  Things like this need review by (likely) Constitutional attorneys...nothing goes quickly when it comes to legal matters.  

 

As for your belief that same-sex marriage is a "special" right, it isn't legal in Oregon, so this isn't a factor.  The anti-discrimination law protects a person based on their sexual orientation, plain and simple and that includes you and I.  As for polygamy laws,  In 1878, the United States Supreme Court found laws prohibiting polygamy to be constitutional, and this decision still stands.  The LDS Church very specifically decries polygamy -- it is only splinter groups that support and practice it.

 @Sundowner  @Janusfree The key word here is "investigating", Mr. Klein has been found guilty of no wrong doing that I am aware of. It's not a cut and dried issue by any means. It's turned into a "he said, she said" mud slinging flop. Mr. Klein is right there for any and everyone to see, not hiding like a coward. It's not difficult to believe, just from his demeanor, that he's telling the truth. Quite simply, Mr. Klein has a history of not lying when it would have benefitted him, it's not difficult to believe he's telling the truth now. The Lesbo's appear more like drama queen's IMO. Cut and dried investigation? Why do you suppose it's taking so long to get the AG's opinion on this matter? Obviously, someone is lying, and quite frankly, it doesn't appear to be Mr. Klein.

  Personally, I do see same sex marriage as more 'special' rights. We currently have the exact same right's. Same sex marriage affords a certain class of people special rights, but discriminates against the belief's of mormons, as an example. They believe in polygamy, yet are afforded the exact same right's as everyone else, one wife of the opposite sex. It really is just that simple.

 

 

 @Janusfree But they didn't bring it to light.  SweetCakes went on Lars Larson via phone early(ish?) on Friday, 2/1 to tell of the dilemma he'd gotten himself into, what I would view as covering his hiney/riling up his base because he already knew the State was investigating an allegation that he had broken the State's anti-discrimination law.  Within hours, the story was on KATU and KPTV.  The same-sex couple did everything quietly, no leak to the press from what I've read.  They've issued one statement via an attorney....that's the only thing I've seen where they really said anything whatsoever.  Did many get up in arms about the whole thing?  Absolutely, but I don't fault these two women.  Personally, I'd be mad as hell and I'd probably blab it, but then that's just me.  Furthermore, I don't see it as "special" rights, because the sexual orientation part of the law protects me, too....I can't be discriminated against because of what I might like or not like.   

 @Sundowner Ditto here, I personally don't believe in organized religion either, but the same holds true with this gay marriage BS. I'm the first to admit that by all outward appearances, Mr. Klein is a religious zealot, what I can't see is how that differs from this pairodykes. Is one self serving bigot more righteous or any better than the other? My answer is a resounding NO. I wouldn't even be commenting on this issue but for these two cowards and their handlers bringing it to light the way they have. My vote is clearly against gay marriage, not in a small way because of these kind of tactic's and wondering what's next, MORE special rights? Where does it end?  

 @Janusfree  I'm always hopeful that with age comes a certain degree of wisdom from life experiences.  I've always been a staunch supporter of the underdog and that has always led me on paths that weren't politically accepted by many at the time.  Early in high school (maybe junior high, can't really recall) I marched (only a few miles, but I was there) with Cesar Chavez before the UFW was formed because I saw the blatant discrimination and abuse of farm workers....I see it here regarding sexual orientation.  I'm a far-more accepting person as the years creep by and I strive very hard to not be judgmental, but having all this religion thrown in my face over this issue is causing some real consternation for me.     

 @Sundowner  @brendan  @Jenni S. Well spoken sundowner, and with due respect I even liked your post. We obviously have a difference of opinion on this issue, but unlike the 2 cowards attempting to backdoor this issue, your out front with your beliefs and I can respect that, just like Mr. Klein.  

 @Janusfree  @brendan  @Jenni S. Yes, he's absolutely right up-front with his beliefs.  Thing is, he can't use those beliefs to discriminate against a customer.  He knew that, or at least he should have, when he opened his business to the public.  We all have to follow laws that we might not agree with, but that doesn't hold us harmless.  Heck, we can even be prosecuted (and most certainly investigated as is the case here) if we break laws we aren't even aware of.  I paid a heavy fine and did 4 hours of on-line 'education' because I didn't come to a complete stop leaving a McDonalds parking lot,  There was no stop sign, so I assumed I was free to go after checking for on-coming traffic.  I was wrong.  Mr. Klein was wrong in this case, IMO.  The investigation will reveal the exact interpretation of anti-discrimination laws, but I don't think he has a chance in hell of pulling this off.  We'll see.

 @Sundowner  @brendan  @Jenni S. Blindly? How so? Mr. Klein appears to be right up front in his belief's. I, personally, don't agree with his reasoning, but it's blatantly obvious who the real victim is in this fiasco. The simple fact that he turned down business in this economy speaks volumes about what kind of man he really is. Now that the other foot has dropped, the term 'sock-puppet' is defined as well. Making false allegations for personal gain is illegal, so I have to ask, who is blindly supporting others who break the law? The answer is in your mirror Sundowner, every morning and night. 

 @Janusfree  @brendan  @Sundowner  @Jenni S. I'm reminded of the Monty Python Cheese Shop skit.  

 

Red Leicester “I'm afraid we're fresh out of Red Leicester sir.” Tilsit “Never at the end of the week, sir. Always get it fresh first thing on Monday." Caerphilly "Ah well, it's been on order for two weeks, sir. I was expecting it this morning." Bel Paese “Sorry.” Red Windsor “Normally, sir, yes, but today the van broke down.” Stilton “Sorry.” Gruyère “No.” Emmental “No.” Norwegian Jarlsberg “No.” Liptauer “No.” Lancashire “No.” White Stilton “No.” Danish Blue “No.” Double Gloucester <pause> “No.” Cheshire “No.” Dorset Blue Vinney “No.” Brie “No.” Roquefort “No.” Pont l'Evêque “No.” Port Salut “No.” Savoyard[5] “No.” Saint-Paulin “No.” Carré de l'Est “No.” Boursin “No.” Bresse-Bleu “No.” Perle de Champagne “No.” Camembert “Ah! We do have some Camembert, sir.... It's a bit runny, sir.... Well, as a matter of fact it's very runny, sir.... I think it's runnier than you like it, sir... Yes, sir." (bends below counter and reappears) "Oh... the cat's eaten it." Gouda “No.” Edam “No.” Caithness “No.” Smoked Austrian “No.” Sage Derby “No.” Wensleydale “Yes, sir. ... Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr Wensleydale.” Greek Feta “Ah, not as such.” MT&HGorgonzola “No.” Parmesan “No.” Mozzarella “No.” Pipo Crem'[6] “No.” Fynbo “No.” Czechoslovakian sheep's milk cheese “No.” Venezuelan Beaver Cheese “Not today sir, no.” Cheddar “Well, I'm afraid we don't get much call for it around these parts.” Ilchester “I'll have a look sir.” <looks around beneath counter> “No.” Limburger “No.” Any cheese at all Customer: “Now, I'm going to ask you that question once more. And if you say no, I'm going to shoot you through the head. Now, do you have any cheese at all?”Shop owner: “No.” (shoots cheese shop owner)

 @Janusfree  @brendan  @Sundowner  @Jenni S. Up until I read your paragraph above, I was only aware that there was one kind of wedding cake in existence - a.k.a "Wedding cake".

 

Talk about splitting hairs. 

 @Janusfree  @brendan  @Jenni S. !!!!We make cakes for all occasions!!!!  What else should that mean?  He could have refused to make the cake by saying he found their decorating ideas to be in poor taste (he would have needed to keep his flap shut about his reasoning), much like any shopkeeper could do re: KKK.  There is none so blind as he who will not see, and since you choose to not see, I see no point in discussing it further with you.  You won't read the law and even if you did you'd likely try to spin it.  Law is law, you don't get to interpret it.  BTW, do you blindly support others who (allegedly) break the law?  I believe in 'innocent until proven guilty', but I also look at the facts as presented.  You choose not to.   

 @brendan  @Sundowner  @Jenni S. Split hairs all you like, but nowhere on the website does he claim to offer same sex wedding cakes. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't make a KKK wedding cake either, just for instance. Discrimination? I think not.

 @brendan  You left out all the exclamation marks.  !!!!!!Jeesh!!!!!!

 @Janusfree  @Jenni S. @brendan "Discrimination in Public Accommodation A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older)."  He offers wedding cakes, so the service is offered to others, just not to the same-sex couple.  The law is pretty clear.

 @Janusfree  @Sundowner  @Jenni S. "We make cakes for any occasion", right on their website.

 @Janusfree  @Sundowner  @Jenni S. Except they do make wedding cakes.  The service is offered.

 @Sundowner  @Jenni S. Have you? I would be interested in seeing a link to the part where it says ANYONE is required by law to provide a service they simply don't offer. 

 @brendan  @Janusfree  @Jenni S. I still don't know how people can read it and not "get" it, and at the same time believe SweetCakes is being singled out unfairly.  He shouldda kept his mouth politely shut.  Maybe if he'd been eating a piece of bacon during the conversation......

 @Sundowner  @Janusfree  @Jenni S. That would require effort.

 @Janusfree  @Jenni S. I ask a serious question, just to make sure I know where you're coming from.  Have you read the actual law that covers discrimination in the State of Oregon?

 @badcat  This has been blown WAYYYY out of proportion.  For hecks sake.  It is a cake.  there are PLENTY of other bakeries in Portland.  My issue with this is that these two ladies HAD to make a BIG stink over this guy not wanting to bake them a cake, JUST BECAUSE he didn't want to do it because it is for a gay couple.  I can't stand the hypocrisy involved with these issues. It borders on the insane.  You know, repeating the same actions over and over and expecting a different response?

 @Janusfree He is denying service due to illegal discrimination.  And I was speaking figuratively (pun intended) -- there was no mention of a request for plastic figures at the top.  My point is that there is no difference, and he broke Oregon state law when he refused to make a wedding cake for this couple.  They didn't ask for tires, or lawn service, or coffee.  They asked for a wedding cake and he refused on the ground of religious and sexual discrimination.  I can't wait for the ruling to come down against him for doing so.

 @badcat It's the "other than" that nullifies the second of your questions badcat. I don't believe he did violate any Oregon law. By their own admission, they purchased cake there before. On this occasion, they wanted something he simply doesn't offer to anyone, much like a set of tires for instance. I get that he doesn't offer that weird little plastic figure on top by choice, do you? 

 @Janusfree  Other than the plastic figure at the top, what is the difference?  And can you at least admit that you understand what he did is against Oregon state law?

 @Sundowner  @brendan I get that straight people wouldn't order a same sex wedding cake just fine. I also understand that Mr. Klein is straight, and doesn't MAKE same sex wedding cake for ANYONE. This whole fiasco is obviously not about Sweet Cakes bakery OR a "same sex wedding cake", but something much bigger, at Mr. Klein's expense. THAT'S the real issue for me, get it yet? There's the real discrimination in a nutshell IMO. 

 @Janusfree  @brendan Do you not "get" that straight people wouldn't order a same-sex wedding cake?  There's your violation of the law.  Polite or impolite, doesn't matter.  I'd hide from the media too if this happened to me -- if I was discriminated against for being the age I am or the color I am or the size I am or the nationality I am or what I do in my bedroom.  How humiliating for them.  And for him to go on the radio and TV and call them out for being gay -- yeah, I'd steer clear of the media too.  All they want is for the State to investigate.  

 @brendan Wow. Thats not what I saw at all. He very politely stated his business "doesn't do same sex weddings" and apologized  for wasting their time. Should the truth be known, media-whoring wouldn't be far off the mark btw, neither is hiding like cowards. It should be obvious to anyone with a mind of their own that these two are merely sock-puppets to further the queer agenda by now, I certainly get it.  

 

 @Janusfree @brendan  I listened to his 'stuff' on Lars....he readily admitted what he did, bragged on it actually.  As for the other, please don't espouse that your beliefs are based on religion if you're going to refer to these women as "pairodykes".  Very childish and non-Christ like, although when one is losing an argument and resorts to name-calling, they're basically conceding the fight.  As for "cowering", the only thing these women did was report his actions to the State (much like a whistleblower) and look at the disgust it's brought out from those claiming to live their life taking the high road of religion.  Very hypocritical, IMO. 

 @Janusfree The gals may have accused him, but he stood up and said he did it.  Admission of guilt.  He said it right there on camera, that he refused them service because of same-sex.

 

OH, I call absolute BS on the cowering.  If they retain their privacy, they get accused of cowering; if they come forward, they get accused of media-whoring.

@Janusfree Actually just once.Meaure 36

 @Janusfree  @Reeldeal101 Against civil same-sex marriages.  Last I checked, there were no laws against ceremonial or religious weddings.

 @Reeldeal101 That was in reference to the 3 times the people of Oregon have voted AGAINST same sex marriage. 

 @Janusfree 3 times?  What happened before?  Do you have a link?