They can do what they want, but if you want to live in a Western society I think you're going to have to accept a few things

1.) Gay people exist and aren't going to "hide" in the closet anymore. Those days are over.

2.) They get married just like other people do.

They're not going to "go away" because you want to be in denial or pretend that they're not members of society. You can be on the right side of history or you can be on the bigoted side of it, I guess that's an individual choice.

This is discrimination, simple, its illegal, business should lose their license.

I don't mind this part of the argument but we are straying from the main topic which in and of itself is a complicated mess judging by the severe dichotomies in opinions expressed in this thread.

However let me answer your statement. If you are going to question my logic you must be sure to not stray from it yourself. I NEVER said that people buy guns ONLY to kill. That line is an ABUSE of logic itself because with that type of reasoning, nothing is lethal or bad or evil. Let's take Hitler one of the biggest monsters in history. He killed Jews but he did NOT ONLY do that as he did lots of other stuff, so would you surmise that Hitler killing Jews is not bad? This is only a test of logic, I don't mean to argue history or your opinions on WW2.

As for my emotions they are not impairing anything. Guns kill and that's a fact. You don't buy a gun cause it's a toy or cause it allows you to call someone like a phone does or cause it can be used as a paper weight on a desk to avoid drafts from scattering your documents all over the room each time you open your windows, you buy a gun cause it makes you feel powerful and it makes you feel powerful because it gives you the power to kill a person simply by pulling a trigger. Fascination for guns and the power they confer is, I suppose, part of human nature. Everybody is at some point in their lives fascinated by that kind of power. I was too when I was a kid, I can't remember but I probably had a plastic toy gun I played with. But then something happened and I lost interest in guns. I GREW UP, matured and began reasoning and realized that guns are weapons that kill and there is NOTHING civilized about it or worth any type of fascination. (beside sick fascination I guess).

Now if you lost respect for my logic, I can't even say that much to you because I see no logic at all to begin with in that last line of your comment I made bold and underlined. Implying that guns are OK because and I quote "gun owners would have already murdered us to the last man" is like saying, war is okay because if war was bad, every last human would already have been murdered...

With all the gun related deaths, massacres that are now a very common thing in the United States, it is literally insanity to even think for a second that there is ANY good reason to own a gun. In fact wanting to own a gun is SO PERVERTED socially and humanly speaking that the logic behind this line "I'm buying a gun to defend myself because I want to be able to protect myself and be on equal footing with an assailant that points a gun at me" is, from a purely logical point of view... almost correct. At this point please note the greater logic that you wouldn't need to buy a gun to defend yourself against gun attacks if guns had NEVER been on sale in the FIRST PLACE. But I know that in the US that ship has long sailed and I don't think a point where no guns are on sale anymore and all guns already sold are destroyed, is even realistic anymore. So in America I'm afraid you guys are stuck with this sick logic of "more guns" to the guns problem. Wouldn't wanna be ya.

Sorry for the off-topic reply but I felt this reply to what you said was totally warranted. And I'll be happy to discuss this issue with you or anyone but not here, obviously.

LMAO X1000 XD XD XD for your logic here.  I don't see any comparison from a medical perspective to now Chinese people.   I guess you just crying for something that is not a problem, too bad people already seeing you logic here and how stupid your argument is. 

Pretty sure there is a difference between christianity a religion thats been around for more then 2000 years and what Harold the bigotted racists made up religion in his basement is. Both have things they believe in and none of them should complain about eachother simple. This is a fair ruling and the baker should not be forced to make a cake for something he doesnt believe in. 

Thats not what the guy wants though he just doesnt want to make a cake for something that goes against his believe. 

So you think his beliefs should give him the right to not take his professional responsibilities?

Ok so by that logic a projectionist in a cinema should be allowed to refuse projecting a movie he does not believe in?

I'd love to see that. I can almost picture some kind of announcement before the show "ladies and gentlemen we are sorry to inform you that you will not be able to see the movie you paid for. Our projectionist does not believe in it so in accordance with his constitutional rights, your rights to see a movie you paid for are cancelled, please find the nearest exit and have a good day".

LOL.

An artist can take any job he wants, him bring a baking artist doesnt matter.
A painter cant be forced to make a painting he doesnt want.
A woodworker cant be forced into making a statue.

I dont get how this reached 5 pages...

There is a pretty big difference in that and Im pretty sure you can see that. Also wouldnt go work at a public place where dozens of people are at a single screening ranging from all kind of backgrounds, religions and sexualities to watch a movie together. A baker is someone who does stuff 1 on 1. There arent hundreds of people coming in to the baker at once and all togeher ask for a single cake. And its not so much that he doesnt want to serve them he doesnt want his cake to be for a ceremony he wouldnt support. Its his art as dumb as that may sound. He has his choice. 

As a matter of fact no, there isn't much difference. The issue here is freedom of refusal to carry out one's professional responsibility if one's beliefs are not in accordance with one's job. That is EXACTLY the case in my example of a projectionist refusing to do his job over his beliefs and the same goes for the baker.

The fact the baker does "stuff 1 on 1" is irrelevant to the main issue which again is the right to not do a job if it goes against one's beliefs. If a baker can refuse to cake a bake because the homosexual theme of the cake goes against his beliefs, a projectionist should have the same right if a movie depicts something that goes against his beliefs.

I think my example clearly demonstrates the absurdity of refusing to do your job over religious concerns. As George Carlin said and I'm paraphrasing: People should keep religion to themselves and not let it interfere with the normal routines of everyday's life. and I'll add: Even more so at their jobs where their actions have consequences on other people (like the gay couple in the bakery).