Paul Flynn:

Well, you can't very well start an argument using the phrase, "Bigotry disguised as 'Religious Liberty'" and claim to have framed the argument in a helpful way. You haven't. You've accused those who follow differing beliefs as bigots which has the primary purpose of shutting them up.

So no, I refuse your claim to higher moral ground here.

Whether 'systematically' or 'unconstitutionally' discriminated against is in fact the point in question ('systematic' in my experience, simply isn't true; the claim to 'unconstitutional' is risible- many judges' rulings notwithstanding).

But no; the desire to "live and let live" has been shown for the falsity that it is - with the few examples we've had so far of photographers and bakers not wishing to participate in something they deeply believe to be wrong. The efforts of the pro-gay movement is to ostracize, demonize, and cast out of society those who believe very much as our parents did - that marriage is between a man and woman. The vitriol and hatred I've seen is vastly from the pro-gay movement, against those who haven't yet decided to cast aside tradition about the proper purpose of marriage and sexual mores in society.

I did not in fact cast as monolithic the religious opposition. But it is true that most Christians (of course not all) - notably the largest denomination in the US - Roman Catholics - tradditional jews, Muslims, and many variety of Buddhists - teach quite the opposite that gay-rights advocates would have us believe. You are thus castigating millions of people as bigots - even though many of them have very thoughtful, nuanced, loving and careful positions on the difficult matter of human sexuality.

Legally, this war is upon us; in Canada, you can go to prison if you speak out against homosexual lifestyles. That hasn't happened here yet, but you can certainly lose your job if you don't stand by them. This is intolerance at its best, and I reject that.

Janet Rosen:

Being homosexual is not a "lifestyle." It is who a person IS. Living in a civil society is different from living in a theocracy in that we in civil societies have a right to believe and to worship as we please we do not have the right to interfere with others' civil rights.

There is no Constitutional guarantee of being comfortable about everything - heck, I hate that my tax dollars support war just as much as many hate that their tax dollars support contraception - but that is how it goes.

Evan Jaeri Miller-Murphy:

I miss you Brandon WilliamsCraig And actually I agree belief is a protected freedom- not to be confused with the freedom to impose those beliefs as law Paul. And calling the refusal to be denied freedom to legallly marry and have the same protections of that union "intolerant" of tax paying, law abiding citizens is sort of like saying its "intolerant" of a woman or African American to expect a days wage for a days work.

Paul Flynn:

Wait a minute - you absolutely want to impose those beliefs by law, Evan: if Tom, a photographer, chooses to follow his personal religious beliefs by rejecting a customer who wants to film his gay wedding ceremony, you want Tom's business closed, shut down - his means of earning a living to feed his family destroyed - and failing to comply with that, you will send Tom to jail.

This is imposing your belief on society. There is no way around this, so please don't pretend that its otherwise. You can justify it by trying to associate with womens' suffrage or black civil rights (both of which metaphors fail, I think) - but at the end of the day, YOU want someone in jail if they don't comply.

Welcome to the strong arm of the law.

Evan Jaeri Miller-Murphy:

Actually I don't want that. I want the right to marry the person I love, to have them inherit from me or vice versa without penalty, and be afforded the protections and tax liability of marriage. It is a right both our taxes pay for. As for discrimination being illegal- it should be . When I was little in East Tx there were still " right to refuse service " signs. It was wrong. It is not about forcing anyone to BELIEVE as someone else does- it is denying them the chance to OPPRESS them. It is not the same . If I owned a store I could not refuse service to a skinhead with swastika tattoos or wearing a KKK support shirt . I could not even refuse service to that reality TV nut job who has made it her lifes goal to churn out a couple of dozen incubators and sperm factories. Not refusing them service would be DISCRIMINATORY. Serving them does not mean I have to accept their BELIEFS only their humanity and right to fair treatment whether or not I agree with them. I could suffer the same penalties in my big gay establishment for refusing to serve straight patrons because discrimination is rightfully illegal. It is not one sided nor is it defensible.

Evan Jaeri Miller-Murphy:

Also please never say "you" as if you know anything about me- you don't , and you were wrong. I actually don't give 2whits about the bigot photographer nor would I want him jailed. If you think being gay is a belief then afford it the same rights as those of other beliefs. You only want it denied because you approve the discrimination. You have the right not to like gay people- many don't and that is their right. I don't like bigots - that is my right. Neither of us is entitled to limit the freedoms and privileges of citizenship for the other because of that opinion . The difference is, my having the same rights as you takes NOTHING away from you except the legal validation of your opinion. My marriage has nothing to do with you at all , but you would deny me that right because you don't agree? In all likelihood I would not agree with your marriage either, a lot of people might not -that does not make it wrong for you and it is private , it has no impact on me. I would never presume the right to take away by vote from someone else , that which I would not want taken from me. Welcome to the strong heart of humanity.