Guess I need to go check my privilege

he said not ashamed lol

heterosexual men are oppressed in almost every divorce proceeding

One does not have to be a minority to be oppressed. If I were to say I am proud to be a man, I get attacked by feminists. If I were to say I am proud to be white, I would be called a racist KKK member. If I were to say I am proud to be straight, I would be called a bigot. If I were to say I am proud to be a Christian, I would get called a stone-aged narrow-minded thinking delusional racist bigot. The problem is not with who is a minority, the problem is with people always needing to play the victim card.

just start calling yourself White-American....fair is fair....

You do not have to be fired from your job because of who you are to be considered oppressed. Defintion: the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control. How is anything I listed considered just treatment? And you don't think white Christian males haven't lost their job because they are not willing to compromise their values to do their job?

If you are gay, or a minority, or of some religion, and are fired for being incompetent, do go around saying you were fired for being part of an oppressed minority. I have seen this game played before and I believe this is the reason of the inflated perception of persecution. I don't say it happens, but I do say it happens very infrequently. In the majority of the cases, I believe they are just fired because they are terrible at what they do.

CORRECTION to my previous post: "I don't say it DOESN'T happen..."

You just don't seem to understand the oppression comes in many forms. I shouldn't be told what I am allowed to believe because it makes someone else feels uncomfortable. You may not want to think so, but it is just as bad forcing someone to do something against their will than it is to deny someone something, especially when there are other choices available that wouldn't force someone to do something against their will.

Oh yes they have.
Because of affirmative action, such males have at times lost their jobs, or were overlooked for filling a slot in favor of a woman or minority.

best statement ever!!! ^^^^^^^^

Not so.

Kings and Queens and Lords and Chiefs and Priests, etc,,,
Serfdom was a thing, and it was only in the last couple of centuries in the West that men were allowed SOME freedom from shackles of their overlords. The Magna Carta opened the door for this, and America was founded on such. The Founding Fathers used to be the property of the Royal Crown, afterall.

Humans are a social species, and the top of the heirarchy owns those below.
Granted, women, children, the weaker, invalids, the sick, etc, were always lower down, but adult males still belonged to their rulers.
The fact that to this day ALL people are still subservient to whatever goverment and adjucators of the law is a surviving aspect of this.

Also, let a man go out AS A MAN (not as a trans) wearing a dress, jewelry and makeup and hair coifed in some silly style and see how far he gets to go down the street.
Let him go throug divorce proceedings, as stated by Felter, and see how far he gets without getting locked up for contempt of court or even a mental institution.

Oppression is part of the human condition. To state it is only the privilege of only some segments is erroneous and missing the point. Equality is about EVERYBODY. Not just those who shed the biggest tears,,,

Also, let a man go out AS A MAN (not as a trans) - meaning he's not tryong to pass as female.

through* divorce

Excuse me is I sounded overly cranky. I upvoted you anyways,,,

in my opinion no pride is allowed

My mom and dad are heterosexual.

Lots of people are. No one's saying it's bad. Just because there's a drive for gay and immigrant rights doesn't mean people are against heterosexuality. You're still in the majority.

Tell that to the Christian bakers who refused to bake a gay wedding cake because it goes against their beliefs and we're forced to close because they couldn't afford to pay the illegal fines. Or the Christian Michigan farmer who wouldn't allow a lesbian couple from getting married innhis farm and the city illegally bans him from their activities.

It's discriminating against religious freedoms that we apparently don't have anymore in this country. Well, except for Muslims. They have freedom to not bake cakes for gay weddings.

So...the issue is that racism, intolerance, hatred, ignorance (...the list goes on) enshrined by your religion aren't being protected by your Constitutionally secular government ?

Private businesses have the right to turn away any customer they feel they need to turn away. Just like we, the customer, have the right not to frequent their business because of it. Fining a privately owned business is illegal. The government overstepped their bounds by fining a privately owned business over gay issues. The business was not telling the customer that they wouldn't serve them, they said they would not bake a cake for a gay wedding.

And the fact that the gay couple singled out a Christian bakery is quite frankly sinisster. There were plenty of other bakeries that would have made the cake and had no issues, but the gay couple purposely singled out the Christian bakery.

Well stated Spurs. I'd also like to add: the argument is not what Octavia is suggesting. The argument is not that Christian business owners don't want to serve sinners, the argument is that Christian business owners don't want to be an accomplice to the sin. Plain and simply, just because I own a business, does not mean I have to participate in anyone elses sins.

I remember a lot of businesses used to display a sign that said "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." NO BUSINESS should ever be obligated to serve you. But if they don't want your money, you also have every right to take your business elsewhere. Seemed like a good system to me.

If a business told me they won't serve me because I'm a Christian I would be upset. But I also know that if they continue that type of service, it won't be long before their business is ruined.

The issue I have is with the government stepping in and fining private businesses when they have no right to do so. They overstepped their bounds and did something that was illegal.

Everyone is proud of who they are, where they came from, their religion, the color of their skin and their sexual orientation and rightly so. Humans have to practice tolerance. Humans don't like hearing, "I'm better than you." They also don't like to be ignored.

By the way everyone on this thread got up voted. All of you have valid points.

That's where I take issue. The government has no legal authority according to the constitution to force a private business to cater to certain groups.

I remember a time when people weren't compelled by law to purchase a product either (enter Obama Care). I don't know why people don't see government intrusion into people's lives as a problem.

Let me tell you about a case that took place in New Mexico (if I remember right). This happened before same-sex marriage was made legal by federal law (which is what I have a problem with). A Christian woman owned her own photography studio. A lesbian couple came in asking for her to photograph their union and gave her all the specifications that they wanted. A few days later she had contacted the couple to let them know she didn't feel comfortable with performing services for their union since it goes against her beliefs, but also gave them information of 3 other studios that were more than willing to do the same work and even got quotes from them already to give to the couple. Instead of being respectful and accepting of her being uncomfortable with the situation, not to mention the extra mile she went to find others to perform the same tasks they were asking of her, they sued her for discrimination. She could have lied and stated there would have been a scheduling conflict and turned down the business that way, but she was honest with them and even tried to help them out in finding others that would give them what they were asking for. So you tell me, who was being intolerant here? There are thousands of instances like this out there, so don't try to say that this is an isolated incident.

It was made legal by federal law, look it up. It is the only marriage that is legal in all 50 states with the exact same benefits because of federal regulations. Traditional marriage laws are actually different state by state, and it is possible for a straight couple to go from one state to another and have their marriage not be recognized by that state.

Go back and read what I wrote again. The photographer went to other businesses and got the couple quotes from the businesses for them. She wasn't being an asshole and telling the couple they shouldn't be allowed to have their union, she simply stated she didn't feel comfortable being there and providing services for it. There is a huge difference. There is a huge difference between simply turning someone away because of your beliefs and turning them down but helping them find others that are willing to provide services for them. She didn't have to go get quotes from other businesses to help them out, but she did. So the thanks she gets for that is a lawsuit? That isn't right. Why should someone be forced into an uncomfortable situation when there are others that will provide the same services that aren't uncomfortable with the situation? Because of people being intolerant. Like I stated before, she never stated that they shouldn't be allowed to have their union, just that she felt uncomfortable providing services for it. It is not like she threw them out, stoning them because they are gay.

Here is the biggest problem of all. There could have been 5 businesses that provide the same services within a mile of each other. If one business turns someone down for any reason what so ever, what is the problem with going to any of the 4 other businesses to get services from them? Why sue the company because you can't handle some people not feeling comfortable with what you are doing? If a company was to refuse my business for any reason, guess what, I will go find a company that will provide the services I need. Situations like with the photographer shows that people are targeting Christians to make them look evil because they have different beliefs. Pastors have been sued, churches have been sued, Christian adoption agencies have been sued, all because of their beliefs. But yet a same-sex couple can go get a justice of the peace to perform their ceremony, can have an outdoor wedding in a park, and adopt a child from any other agency.

You want to talk about the principle of the thing? How about why force someone to do something against their will just because you can? Why would you want someone at your wedding that doesn't want to be there? Here is what I could see happening. Had the women still did the job, the couple could still sue her by saying she didn't do as good of a job as she should have and that she did a bad job because she didn't think they should be allowed to get married. Do you realize bigotry goes both ways? Instead of choosing a business that would want to be there, they target someone who doesn't want to be there. Someone doesn't have to be part of a minority group to be attacked and someone doesn't have to be part of the majority to be considered a bigot.

Bingo!!! Yeah, the gay wedding cake incident happened in the Portland metro area where I live. What isn't often reported is that it wasn't just an issue of a business refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but that the man in the bakery couple lectured one of the soon-to-be-marrieds that they were doing was a perversion before God. If he simply kept his ignorant gob shut and begged off the job there would have been no problem, but because he made it a religious issue it became a national one. They got boycotted, tried to make their business all online and now I think they're just gone. Your freedom to serve who you want and my freedom to not buy your sh!t in response. :P

LMAO!