Jon J "Why should deli owners who hate amputees be excluded from business opportunities when only a few amputees are going to purchase prosciutto from them?"

The owner is choosing to "exclude" those opportunities.
Why is that anyone's concern but theirs?

Customers refused have options elsewhere.
But the business owners have no options?
All the options are on one side of the counter.
A commercial "contract" is supposed to involve 2 voluntary parties, not 1.

You don't need to "renounce the principles behind" these laws to question the laws themselves.

It's all very "fortunate" when the law supports your agenda.
When it doesn't (Proposition 8, Arizona SB 1070, your friend's party drugs) there's *something wrong with the system*!

You wouldn't be bellowing the virtues of state law back in the days of Jim Crow and women-can't-vote, eh?
You are fair weather democrats.
Democracy is great, only as long as it supports your perspective.

Enjoy your Fortunate Fascism while you can.
The more you push, push, push, the bigger the "unfortunate" backlash will be.
You (and I, a homosexual and true liberal) will lose all the gains made and may never get them back.
No smug popcorn entertainment then.

Rhrosty "Sodomy occurs between different sex couples as well! All we can require of them is that they use a condom!"

Should we make condoms state-mandated too?
After all, it would be "fortunate" to not spread disease.

Sorry, your rude bits are now in the "public domain".
Big Brother knows what's best for us.

"If the couple hadn't presented together how would the cake shoppe owner known that their religious scruples were being offended?"

Yes, why *do* you need the world to know you're a lesbian couple who want a lesbian cake for your lesbian wedding?
Oh, and do you except Lesbian dollars from my lesbian purse?

It's a cake.
All they need to know is what size, flavour and colour.
It's *you* who needs the whole world to know you're lesbian.

We don't burn people at the stake anymore for affronting consensus reality.
We make them pay symbolic "high priestesses" $135,000.

Hi Joe

I agree "it's amazing that there seems not to have been any threads dealing with the financial crises in Greece and China", so i just started one, if you're interested.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6922

Cheers

How quickly the government and judiciary have turned on supporters of traditional marriage.

In Australia, eleven year ago, the opposition Labor Party under Mark Latham supported Prime Minister Howard's Marriage Act amendment to restrict the definition of marriage to being between a man and a woman.

In the United States, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama publicly pledged themselves to defend traditional marriage.

Now all of the above have performed a 180-degree about-turn, and they expect the public to obediently fall into line like soldiers!

Self-styled "moderate" (i.e., trendy) Liberals, such as Malcolm Turnbull and Christopher Pyne, are pleading with Abbott to be permitted to exercise a conscience vote on the issue.

A conscience vote? Why don't these politicians allow the public to be able to exercise THEIR conscience rights on the issue of same-sex marriage?

Too many politicians want to have one set of standards for themselves, but deny the same rights to the voting public.

Solon have you ever thought that Clinton and Obama have 'changed their minds' on the subject of gay marriage because they realise that the majority of the U.S. public now are ok with legalising gay marriage?

If it can happen that way in predominantly Catholic Ireland, it can happen anywhere.

And guess what? Heterosexual marriages have not been affected at all in those countries...and....the sky has not fallen in.

The recent Supreme Court decision is another example of the flawed nature of the US Constitution. This question should be put to a referendum and / or be the subject of a constitutional amendment which in the US involves the US Congress and a majority of the State Congresses to pass it.
This is very basic fundamental legislation that should never be decided by a majority of the Supreme Court. Two of the justices had a personal interest in the outcome and should have been required to recuse themselves.