Rush just mentioned Justice Kennedy's take on Gay Wedding cake case

What was his take?

quote:

---

'being gay' is not an identity, but rather 'being gay' is a course of action choice

---

as in you are only gay if you act upon it?

please clarify

quote:

---

'being gay' is a course of action choice

---

100000% Agree

quote:

---

he said that kennedy drilled down and implied that

'being gay' is not an identity, but rather 'being gay' is a course of action choice

---

He did not.

He made a supposition to a counselor that was arguing that Masterpiece denied service based solely on identity.

He said that would be an oversimplification.

OP did a terrible job of summarizing the point Rush was making about Justice Kennedy’s line of question. Justice Kennedy’s point was that there is a huge difference between discriminating against someone because they happen to be gay and refusing to participate in an action that is in conflict with your beliefs. Case in point, if the baker had refused to sell them anything in his store because they are gay, that is discrimination based on sexual orientation and that is illegal. However, he agreed to do business with them, but he declined to participate in the event because of his religious beliefs.

The question is not whether or not a business has a right to deny service to gays or other groups, but whether or not a business has the right to decline to participate in an event they oppose for religious or other moral reasons. For instance, let’s say you go to your local bakery owned by a person of color, and request that he bake a custom cake celebrating the legacy of Bull Connor or the birthday of the Klan. Does that business owner have a right to refuse to bake you a cake or do you take him to court for discrimination and force him to bake you a Klan cake?

There are two basic factors at play with sexuality: physiological attraction (arousal and willingness/desire) and sexual capability (the ability to physically participate).

Arousal and desire can and do change over time due to various other factors other than anatomy. Many women get "turned on" (sexually aroused) by men due to factors unrelated to physical appearance. Strength, confidence, humor, financial stability, the ability to make 'dank memes', and other such characteristics can and do make men more or less attractive to women regardless of what they look like.

I've personally had attraction towards women that turned into repulsion after hearing them talk or express opinions that I didn't like. I've met some beautiful women that had bad odor which turned me off.

Familiarity also changes sexual attraction. Getting to know someone better can increase or decrease your desire to want to have sex with someone. Many marriages break down over time because one or both partners are too used to the other and don't have that same sexual desire that they used to have that they desperately want.

The other factor is sexual capability. Can a person physically be aroused by someone of either sex? The answer is undeniably "yes". All it requires is stimulation of your sex organs when it's all boiled down. It's why so many people in prison have consensual (and forced) sex with other prisoners with the same anatomy even if they wouldn't consider themselves homosexuals; they're just looking to "get off". If you can use warm fruit or a silicone sex toy, you can use another person, regardless of their sex/gender.

In that sense, anyone can have sex with anyone else. Physically, at least. The only obstacle to it would be the desire, and it's been shown that different factors influence desire or willingness.

It's far more complicated than just "I like girls" and "I like boys".

One zillion pages later...

quote:

---

'being gay' is not an identity, but rather 'being gay' is a course of action choice

agree or disagree?

---

Disagree with the premise. It is flatly wrong.

If you're asking whether I agree or disagree with Rush, I have no idea. Almost never listen.