Really, no difference on people of a mixed race. So now you are scientifically calling people that are homosexual a different species or a different race.
I said no such thing, your the one now saying the people of mixed races should not be allowed to marry. I really suggest you step back from the keyboard and learn A) logic and B) the difference between “scientific” and ‘mere example’.
There is no scientific evidence of any such thing and this law was passed by the USSC based on feelings with no evidence that a difference actually exists that would have required equal protection under the laws of this country.
And I suggest a refresher course in English, as this word salad you spewed needs some dressing as it just that, a spewing of words no cohesiveness. You are the one trying to make it sound ‘scientific’. I merely gave a couple of examples.
As I have said before this negates the laws of incest, the laws of bigamy etc because now you are saying the purpose of marriage is to obtain rights.
And as you have probably been told before, you absolutely wrong. Incest and bigamy are based religious beliefs, but in no case does the right to marriage negate any such laws. I would say your logic and your law study both are seriously flawed and you really must stop attempting to practice either.
Marriage is about rights, who has the right to say what about their spouse, their children, and any member of the immediate family. Sadly, because bigoted, narrow minded people who believe in an Undead, Zombie, Sky-daddy in the clouds, in order for two people to get certain rights to such things as property, burial and medicine it has become necessary to have a government signed piece of paper to get them. Nothing can stop a couple from having a child, regardless of the laws. However the law and certain narrow minded bigots can stop someone from making determinations about someone they love.
In other words if I drink and drive in one state that does not have a law against it, another state cannot arrest me or fine me for what I did in my state. That is the same thing this market did.
Seriously, go back to school and get some re-training in logic and laws. The market says you can not practice bigotry at their market. End of Argument. No, Nyet, Nein, Nicht, F’ing Never. The correct example would be, you are going to ‘drink’ in the state that allows it, and then drive back home to your state that doesn’t. Tough nuts Junior, you can’t do it, if the police pull you over and your intoxicated your going to jail. Further, if the state say that your not legally allowed to drink due to age, and you cross the line to avoid the law, you can still be charged when you come back. Happens all the time in the midwest to military personal who cross state lines to drink where the age limit is lower. The more relevant example would be your going to Japan to have sex with a minor (which has no law against it), in the attempt to avoid the laws here. When you come back, you can be arrested and jailed for having sex with a minor because we do not allow it here at all. The laws specifically states that you can not move out the jurisdiction of a an area, simply to avoid the law.
The man made it clear he was going to come to the market and use discriminatory practices there. End of Argument. They do not then have to allow him to come there. If I walk into a bar and acts like an asshole, the bar has no compulsion by law to allow me to return if I break their rules. END OF ARGUMENT.
BTW, this couple did not prevent any homosexuals from coming to their farm and doing business, they only prevented them from getting married on their property which they had to do because that is their religion.
Please, your ignorance is becoming major stupidity. Yes, they did; They Refused to allow the couple to even book the marriage. The couple is performing marriages in a business sense, regardless of whether they receive monetary compensation or not. Business law is business law. And your own statement contradicts itself . If they book people in advance, that is a business. It is a business practice. Almadan Vineyards in San Jose used to do the same thing; they made wine, they had parties. You could book your wedding or party one year in advance, and pay a small fee that didn’t cover the cost of the actually usage of the property, it simply cover the fees of some of the folks performing the ceremony’s.
It was a business, open to the public, and therefore has to follow the rules of the non-discrimination. End of Argument.
No amount of arguing is going to change the facts. No amount of bigoted, narrow minded, wishful thankful will either. If you offer the public a business, you can not discriminate based on Religion, Race, Sex, Country of Origin, and so on. If you practice discrimination, a business here in California has the right to not do business with you. It also has the right to refuse you a license to practice said business, if you make the public claim that your going to use said discriminatory practices.
The market has the right to say “You may not come here, to the market, and do business here”. The couple can stay on their on farm, and if people come to them, they can still discriminate against them, and the market can still refuse them a license. That is the facts.