Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[jab]

As well as a crime when it occurs in legal filings. I'm am still waiting for news of the fair and just Amurica of Tom and Bomb and Emily and L. P. charging the perjurous litigant and her lawyers.

Say wut?

I'm sure I was part of that discussion, early in this thread.
Appallingly bad judicial process to rule on a case where one of the parties is, not just fictional, but a lie. One named party isn't gay, has been married for years, and didn't know he was involved. How SCOTUS "overlooked" that is definitely worth an investigation, IMHO.
Tom

ETA ~I barely noticed that you'd mentioned me. This thread has become a huge mess of long nested quotes it's nearly unreadable. One would think that the staff at least would refrain.~

double deflection: Are you, possibly a politician.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for those charges.

 

[TomC]

Er, your view point seems naive, blinkered, short-sighted to me.

Er, you don't seem able to express why you have Faith in that belief.
I don't really expect one either.
Tom

 

[jab]

I presume that the SCOTUS decision actually applies to the creation of any website at all, not just wedding websites. However, since we have all spent a lot of time imagining what goes into a wedding website, it might be worth actually looking at the product. There are all kinds of examples of the service out there. Basically, they provide templates, a checklist of things that need to be included, and a hosting service. You can even create these sites for free nowadays, but professionals are in business to get projects accomplished efficiently. So they aren't exactly artistic geniuses. Here is a good site to visit in order to get an idea of how such a service works:

Tips for Creating a Wedding Website

I briefly visited several of these sites for creating and hosting. Most of the ones I saw had same-sex couples on display, which must horrify the anti-gay hordes of wannabe web designers. Anyway, it looks like creating one of these websites is a fairly well thought out activity. I don't think people would need the help of a professional unless they are uncomfortable around computers or don't have the time to get down into the weeds. It's a bit like the activity of a home decorator, who comes up with options that give customers ideas of how to design a comfortable living space.

The fruits of your investigation strengthen my suspicion, that the perjurous litigant did this partly as a publicity stunt to attempt to lure like-mined affianced bigots to her on-line site, where they won't have to see any up-setting, oh-too-woke wedding signifiers and where they can feel comfy in giving their paying custom to a like-mined homophobe. It was likely a way of priming the pump for the expansion for her services that when she was planning in entering into a very crowded field.
BTW, my husband, who is a web designer, and I both find this whole wedding website an foolish, unnecessary thing for anyone to have. Why do people do it?

 

[TomC]

strengthen my suspicion, that the perjurous litigant did this partly as a publicity stunt to attempt to lure like-mined affianced bigots to her on-line site,

That's exactly what I think.

Like Scardina, they wanted publicity. And they got it. Nothing else matters much.

I forget who said, "I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name right." I think that is what's going on here. From the bakery to website designer to the hair place in Michigan to the churches and PACs and politicians.
Just get us out on the internet for free.
Tom

 

[jab]

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

Yeah, that's why Australia is indistinguishable from North Korea.

You Americans don't half love your hyperbole, particularly with regards to your sacred Bill of Rights. It's just a dated list of legal principles of varying quality. The First Amendment isn't a bad principle, but it's not perfect, and it's certainly not an indispensable prerequisite for the very existence of legal rights for citizens.

And then there's the fabulously salty second amendment--why I remember when the right-wing racists right south of the border were questioning Michelle Obama's right to bare arms; but then were if anything, laudatory, about Melania's bare arms. But when it comes to the second amendment's application, the right south of the border seems to think the right is white, but blacks even possibly bearing arms is an abomination, and if the opportunity arises, should be gunned down by cops.

 

[Gospel]

A long, long time ago, my first grade art teacher told us we were NOT ALLOWED to draw suns as circles with lines representing rays because that's not how the sun looked. Also grass was green and the sky was blue and other anal retentive crap. I forgot and executed a well done (for a first grader) drawing that....included a sun with drawn rays around it. My picture was chosen for display BUT with the offending sun covered up by a square of paper. It outraged me at the time and really stuck with me, as did my adamant refusal (11 years later) to create art work for the senior high school year book that represented the sponsor's very pedestrian vision instead of my beautiful and vaguely intellectual (albeit in a stereoytypical way) vision which would have been poetic, somewhat original and in keeping with the color scheme the sponsor imposed upon us against our will. So I didn't design that year's cover. Someone else did, creating exactly what the teacher ordered. It's still ugly and stupid whereas mine would have been beautiful. Yes, it's childish I suppose to hold on to these ancient grudges but I take freedom of expression extremely seriously. Even if it's expression that I find offensive.

Look, businesses catering to the public bear a distinct responsibility. They cannot deny services based on sexual orientation, race, religion, or other protected attributes. Such discrimination isn't just a display of personal beliefs but actively inflicts harm.

Permitting businesses to act on biases would pave the way for rampant discrimination, adversely affecting marginalized individuals and creating an unstable economic landscape.

Many professionals, unlike make-believe web designers, hold personal convictions not fully aligned with every facet of their job. Yet, they consistently serve a diverse clientele, recognizing that personal beliefs shouldn't sanction discrimination. While some may perceive it as creating an illusion of equality—which may have merit—it also suggests that the hypothetical web designer isn't the only one compelled (as you put it) to treat people fairly. Yet they want special treatment from the SCOTUS.


Freedom of expression is paramount, but it must be exercised judiciously. While educators, like art teachers, can establish guidelines for classroom activities, these should not perpetuate discrimination. For instance, dictating a singular way to depict a sun shouldn't marginalize any group. I'm fairly certain that no protected classes were discriminated against because the teacher instructed students not to draw suns as circles with lines as rays. I'm genuinely surprised that you equate being limited in how you draw the sun with facing discrimination. That's a significant comparison to make. I mean HOLY FUCKING SHIT!

 

[TomC]

And then there's the fabulously salty second amendment--why I remember when the right-wing racists right south of the border were questioning Michelle Obama's right to bare arms; but then were if anything, laudatory, about Melania's bare arms. But when it comes to the second amendment's application, the right south of the border seems to think the right is white, but blacks even possibly bearing arms is an abomination, and if the opportunity arises, should

I avoid making similarly crusty criticism of countries I don't live in because I don't think I'm sufficiently familiar with their history or culture.

I don't have a sufficiently informed opinion. I try to avoid displaying my ignorance.
Tom

 

[Copernicus]

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

Yeah, that's why Australia is indistinguishable from North Korea.

You Americans don't half love your hyperbole, particularly with regards to your sacred Bill of Rights. It's just a dated list of legal principles of varying quality. The First Amendment isn't a bad principle, but it's not perfect, and it's certainly not an indispensable prerequisite for the very existence of legal rights for citizens.

And then there's the fabulously salty second amendment--why I remember when the right-wing racists right south of the border were questioning Michelle Obama's right to bare arms; but then were if anything, laudatory, about Melania's bare arms. But when it comes to the second amendment's application, the right south of the border seems to think the right is white, but blacks even possibly bearing arms is an abomination, and if the opportunity arises, should be gunned down by cops.

Well, they do draw the line at Hunter Biden bearing arms while smoking dope.

 

[jab]

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

Yeah, that's why Australia is indistinguishable from North Korea.

You Americans don't half love your hyperbole, particularly with regards to your sacred Bill of Rights. It's just a dated list of legal principles of varying quality. The First Amendment isn't a bad principle, but it's not perfect, and it's certainly not an indispensable prerequisite for the very existence of legal rights for citizens.

It seems that the US inspired at least some of Australia’s constitution and bill of rights. However, We haven’t been under a monarchy for more than 250 years. Get back to me when y’all break free.

Ah, Camelot, involving the most disgusting Democratic President of my lifetime--Queen Consort Jacqueline was okay, though, but like the modern British monarch more of a figurehead.
Then there's your once and future Emperor Trump, slobberingly adored by 10 of millions of your citizens.
The British monarch is a ceremonial post at present, thanks in part to A Civil War, The Glorious Revolution, The American Revolution, the madness of king George III leading to his defacto removal from the throne, the abdication and marriage of a Nazi-favoring King to a Nazi-favoring American gold-digger.
Problems with the American system: It created the king-like position of President, who may be elected by a minority of those who voted, and who has over the centuries accrued too much power, as people in individual positions of power tend to do; at least least the Repubs brought in term limits in the wake of the populist FDR. Your King/Pres, in theory, can be impeached, convicted, and removed from office by Congress, but the set up, including the non-constitutionally mandated 2-party system, means this is all but impossible, and full process has never been completed. Your unrepresentative Senate is like a House of Lords with real power and with no term limits so that their Party will do their best to protect even the most incapable of them (Dianne Feinstein); and as for your SCOTUS Courtiers-for- life there is no real check and them and, as with your Pres during his term of office no legal way of removal except the unworkable impeachment route.

 

[jab]

Right. So what makes you think it's constitutional for those labeled "business owners" to be singled out for different treatment? Phillips doesn't get to compel Scardina to speak and create what Phillips wants by force of government; why would it be constitutional for Scardina to get to compel Phillips to speak and create what Scardina wants by force of government? The same rules we are all being compelled by are "(1) You have the right to remain silent." and "(2) When somebody won't say or create what you want, your legal recourse against him is limited to not paying him. The government will back your right not to pay him to the hilt, but will take no further action, because see (1)."

Let me be concise, given your tendency to be verbose. Businesses aren't a protected class, and Scardina isn't denying service to a protected class.

So when you wrote:

"Believing that certain mandates don't apply universally reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of equality embedded within the document. In essence, we are all being compelled by the same rules. To single out one group for different treatment is constitutionally counterintuitive."​

you were just blowing smoke out your ass? What you actually meant was:

"Believing that certain mandates don't apply universally reflects a fundamental correct understanding of the principle of inequality embedded within the document. In essence, we are all being compelled by the same rules about whom to protect and whom not to. To single out one 'protected class' for different treatment is constitutionally counterintuitive but to single out a class for different treatment is constitutionally intuitive provided we choose not to protect that class."?​

Thinking of antidiscrimination in terms of "protected classes" leads to illogical conclusions.

Er, I don't think you can extrapolate the behaviour of your own ass to others'.

 

[Gospel]

I think Bomb#30 may not fully grasp my argument. While the case of the alleged Christian web designer is noteworthy, they're not the only one facing challenges to their beliefs due to anti-discrimination laws. The very case this designer presented to the SCOTUS undermines itself. There are many reasons one might argue against Christians, and the Bible itself is replete with tales of persecution. The history of persecution is deeply rooted in its narrative for a reason. This individual, and the subsequent SCOTUS ruling, appear to be indifferent to the broader context. They seem to simply want to fuck anyone who isn't heterosexual without recognizing the larger consequences of their position.

 

[Toni]

A long, long time ago, my first grade art teacher told us we were NOT ALLOWED to draw suns as circles with lines representing rays because that's not how the sun looked. Also grass was green and the sky was blue and other anal retentive crap. I forgot and executed a well done (for a first grader) drawing that....included a sun with drawn rays around it. My picture was chosen for display BUT with the offending sun covered up by a square of paper. It outraged me at the time and really stuck with me, as did my adamant refusal (11 years later) to create art work for the senior high school year book that represented the sponsor's very pedestrian vision instead of my beautiful and vaguely intellectual (albeit in a stereoytypical way) vision which would have been poetic, somewhat original and in keeping with the color scheme the sponsor imposed upon us against our will. So I didn't design that year's cover. Someone else did, creating exactly what the teacher ordered. It's still ugly and stupid whereas mine would have been beautiful. Yes, it's childish I suppose to hold on to these ancient grudges but I take freedom of expression extremely seriously. Even if it's expression that I find offensive.

Look, businesses catering to the public bear a distinct responsibility. They cannot deny services based on sexual orientation, race, religion, or other protected attributes. Such discrimination isn't just a display of personal beliefs but actively inflicts harm.

Permitting businesses to act on biases would pave the way for rampant discrimination, adversely affecting marginalized individuals and creating an unstable economic landscape.

Many professionals, unlike make-believe web designers, hold personal convictions not fully aligned with every facet of their job. Yet, they consistently serve a diverse clientele, recognizing that personal beliefs shouldn't sanction discrimination. While some may perceive it as creating an illusion of equality—which may have merit—it also suggests that the hypothetical web designer isn't the only one compelled (as you put it) to treat people fairly. Yet they want special treatment from the SCOTUS.


Freedom of expression is paramount, but it must be exercised judiciously. While educators, like art teachers, can establish guidelines for classroom activities, these should not perpetuate discrimination. For instance, dictating a singular way to depict a sun shouldn't marginalize any group. I'm fairly certain that no protected classes were discriminated against because the teacher instructed students not to draw suns as circles with lines as rays. I'm genuinely surprised that you equate being limited in how you draw the sun with facing discrimination. That's a significant comparison to make. I mean HOLY FUCKING SHIT!

Actually, I don't equate being censored as a child with being discriminated against on the basis of (insert class), although I was discriminated against because of my age. No such censoring would have happened to an adult. It's been decades since and I still really, really rankle with the idea of being forced to do something that violates my aesthetics much less my religious and ethical and moral beliefs. The same classroom was led by a teacher who was racist towards the lone black child in the classroom, as well as leading classroom prayers and berating all of us for daring to enjoy Halloween. Even as a 6 year old, her remarks about that one child infuriated me, even more than classroom prayers, something that the minister in our church had recently preached AGAINST. (The church drummed out the minister for whatever reason I don't know--I was 6! but thus ended my childhood church going on a regular basis although we did attend Easter services with my very Southern Baptist aunt and her family --but that was a bit later).

I DO realize that a public business has an obligation to provide goods and services towards all (paying) customers, without discrimination. I have zero quarrels with that.

I have enormous quarrels with anyone being forced to create something specific for someone else, full stop.

If I own a shop that sells wedding gowns and the linebacker for the LA Rams wants to wear one of my gowns to his wedding, and it comes in his size or can reasonably be altered to fit his body, then I have no legitimate reason not to sell it to him.

If I were bigoted against gay couples getting married or cross dressers or my church told me that such was a moral abomination (well, I quit youth group over less than that but still: church backed bigotry) and the linebacker for the LA Rams wanted me to DESIGN and MAKE a custom dress for his wedding to the quarterback, then I might be too busy to undertake such a commission in the time frame/price point requested. Which is yet another reason that this whole thing is stupid. People who do custom work decline to take commissions all the time for a variety of reasons. If one didn't want to work with X person then it is easy to come up with a reason why you cannot, so sorry.

 

[Gospel]

I have enormous quarrels with anyone being forced to create something specific for someone else, full stop.

Nobody is being compelled to provide custom services. Yet, if one chooses to offer such services, they shouldn't discriminate based on a protected class. That's how I see it & that's where we differ.

 

[jab]

Nor can I so be legally compelled to create something specifically for any person.

You seem to be glossing over the principle of public accommodations. This concerns a company's duty to ensure equal service, not necessarily the individual's. If someone's uncomfortable extending their creative expertise to all, they might want to think twice about setting up shop in locales with clear inclusivity mandates. Nobody's holding them here or pushing them to open a business. They have the liberty to operate privately, or even jet off to a nation that aligns more with their beliefs. They're not being stopped from practicing their faith or running faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on their own. However, launching a business in a state with specific laws and later challenging those very laws raises eyebrows. Instead of seeking non-existent First Amendment loopholes, why not engage our representatives to amend laws like everyone else?

Nope. I’m not. Please note that I differentiate between between already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual.

For the umpteenth time: I see it as a conflict between what is guaranteed through anti-discrimination laws and first amendment rights. It’s not pretty—in fact, it’s quite ugly in cases where someone discriminates on the basis of sex, gender, race, etc.

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

There is nothing to differentiate from. The general public is mandated to have access to both "already created/made/manufactured and created specifically for an individual" equally. If you disagree with the mandate take it up with your local representative or utilize other options available to you, but don't pretend like you're being compelled to not take the liberty to operate privately, jet off to a nation that aligns more with your beliefs, & stopped from privately or publicly practicing your faith considering you have the option to run faith-based ventures within religious organizations or on your own.

WHERE does it specify already created/made/manufactured AND created specifically for an individual equally? Aside from your posts, I mean. It's the 'created specifically for an individual' part that is the issue, apparently with the current SCOTUS who seem to disagree with your interpretation.

Generally, businesses that provide services to the public can't refuse service based on protected characteristics. Anything classified as a service falls under this mandate.

Gosh!

Can you cite federal legislation that agrees with what you posted?

I believed we were discussing the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) and the SCOTUS' examination of its constitutionality. What gave you the impression I was referencing federal law in a conversation centered on state legislation?

I'd recommend being straightforward in our discussion instead of using indirect tactics. Are you trying to say that if it's not a federal law, it doesn't count as a law?

The SCOTUS has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter.

And that's what we are discussing. Your point?

SCOTUS has the legal authority and power to supersede any state law.

What's your point? Are you trying to say I need to shut my uppity negro mouth and not question the authoritah of the SCOTUS? Why state the obvious?

Nope. I'm saying that the US Supreme Court has over ruled the Colorado Supreme Court. As it can and has done with many other states, often in ways that you and I would both agree with.

If you want me to say that I am deeply troubled by the current SCOTUS, yes, I am. I thought that was obvious.

Ok yeah. sorry I just don't know what that has to do with my argument.

And I'm not sure why you're still making an argument that the SCOTUS has over-ruled.

I'm sorry. I think we're just posting at cross purposes here.

WTF? This is a discussion board. So you are saying that I need to just shut my mouth and not have an opinion on SCOTUS decisions?

Not at all. I'm saying that I think we're talking past each other or misunderstanding one another or talking about different things.

Are you telling me that I should just leave all the real thinking to the men folk?

Er, your view point seems naive, blinkered, short-sighted to me.

Er, you don't seem able to express why you have Faith in that belief.
I don't really expect one either.
Tom

well, there was the complacency about Roe vs. Wade
There was the belief that WWI was the war to end Wars
There was early 20th-century complacency about increasingly civilized Europe that could never go back to the vicious persecutions of the past.
There was the belief that it was okay in the 2020s to talk about issues around sexuality and gender identity in Amurican schools.
There was the belief that it was completely uncontroversial to teach American schoolchildren that American slavery was very bad.
There was the belief that wonderful, lovely literate 21st-century America could never facilitate the rise of a would-be tyrant.
There was the belief in Canada that, without in the leas understanding of thinking about our history with the indigenous peoples and slavery, we were morally superior to the Americans by 1960 or 1970; when residential schools were still a thing here; when incarcertation rates and police stop rates for non-whites were and are higher up to the present; when non-white children in difficult situations were more likely to be removed from there families than white children in similar situation--deliberately so in the 60s Scoop; and when (to pick one example of missing and murdered indigenous women) , Robert Pickton got away with torturing and murdering mostly indigenous sex workers from the 1980s into the 2000s, even though one of his 1997 victims escaped with serious wounds, and he was picked up by the police (the victim was a drug-using indigenous prostitute, the murderer was a white male pig farmer); and when armed stand-offs, including the death-dealing Oka stand-off over land claims, happened in this time period.
Mainstream USA after 1920 believed "Indian" issues were settled and buried the Osage murders of the 1920s, and were surprised by Wounded Knee.
Right-wing violent extremism in USA was quashed with Timothy McVeigh, so forget about it going forward.
There was the general complacency in Canada that we were so much better that most other countries when it came to gay rights that we allowed Bruce McDonald to continue to kill in the 200s even after one report of assault and one report of attempted murder, with him in the police station in both cases.
English believed the bloody annexation of Ireland was worth forgetting in 1700s, though Swift was mad when he reminded them of problems in Ireland and were surprised by the Irish troubles of the 1800s & 1900s.
British believed the European union question had been settled consensually and were shocked when Brexit went back to the past.
English believed that Scottish amalgamation was settled circa 1700, and were surprised and hurt by recent attempts to secede.
There was a belief that book banning was a thing of the past.

Yeah, your view seems naive, blinkered, short sighted, ignorant.

 

[Emily Lake]

The notion that designating protected classes within antidiscrimination laws inadvertently guides people's perspectives in a particular direction is a valid point. However, the underlying purpose of establishing these classes shouldn't be overlooked. By pinpointing groups that have historically faced discrimination, the law aims to create a level playing field.

I get where you're coming from, but I think you're being too broad.

Protected classes aren't universally protected - they're protected from discrimination within specific contexts. And the intent is to create level playing fields in some fields.

In most employment, it's illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of sex. You can't just refuse to hire someone because they're a woman. But there are still some instances where sex is directly relevant to the performance of the job itself, and in those instances it's perfectly legal to discriminate on the basis of sex. Someone hiring performers for Chippendales can 100% refuse to hire a woman simply because she's a woman - the fundamental nature of the job itself requires that the employee be male.

In most residences, it's illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their age (presuming majority or emancipation). You can't refuse to sell a house or rent an apartment to someone just because they're under 30. But there are some instances where age is a specific element of the residence itself. It's perfectly legal of a retirement community or a senior assisted living apartment to refuse to sell to someone who is not a senior citizen.

It's generally illegal to discriminate against disabled individuals in employment or residence... unless accommodating their disability places an undue burden on the employer/seller. A landlord can refuse to lease an apartment to someone in a wheelchair if there's no elevator in the building and no reasonable way to put one in, or if the cost to do so would be exorbitant or would significantly impact the costs of the other residents. An employer can refuse to hire a deaf person if the job requires the ability to hear, or if closed captioning or a signer isn't something that can reasonably be implemented.

 

[Emily Lake]

Regarding your second comment, I must ask: why can't we engage in an open discussion without attempting to deduce someone's underlying intentions behind their arguments? If you're suggesting that I don't consider land-owning white men as a protected class, you're greatly mistaken.

Why are you always so certain I'm trying to discern some underlying motive? I rarely try to do that, because I generally suck at it. I'm pretty sure you and I but heads because I can't read your subtlety and inflection, and any time I respond, you assume I'm trying to read your mind. It's exhausting and a needless rabbit hole. So how about we both just say what we mean and mean what we say?

I'm not suggesting anything other than that the founding fathers were a fair bit limited in their view of who counts as a people - neither you nor I had access to those rights so carefully crafted, nor were we granted any protections at all. That's not anything other than an observation of fact.

 

[jab]

And then there's the fabulously salty second amendment--why I remember when the right-wing racists right south of the border were questioning Michelle Obama's right to bare arms; but then were if anything, laudatory, about Melania's bare arms. But when it comes to the second amendment's application, the right south of the border seems to think the right is white, but blacks even possibly bearing arms is an abomination, and if the opportunity arises, should

I avoid making similarly crusty criticism of countries I don't live in because I don't think I'm sufficiently familiar with their history or culture.

I don't have a sufficiently informed opinion. I try to avoid displaying my ignorance.
Tom

dear me, can't ya take a campy joke. Pearl-clutching prissiness, such as you exhibit here, is often a response to camp. I know, I done it myself.
I gather you don't, on principle, approve of the Beatles British perspective in "Happiness is a Warm Gun".
Your country's gun policy, leaning on the second amendment, is crazed, racist in application, and appalling. It facilitates depriving large numbers of Americans of their right to life, so other citizens of democracies can look at the likes of Toni gloating over having a constitution and not having a monarch and think, yeah, but you got guns, guns, guns embedded in your very constitution. Or, have i misunderstood the right to life in America? As another poster reminded me about the right to the pursuit of happiness, it the right to life merely in the your apparently insignificant Declaration of Independence, and therefore not constitutionally guaranteed?

 

[TomC]

Pearl-clutching prissiness,

Heh.

Tom

 

[jab]

But if we do not have First Amendment rights, we have no rights at all.

Yeah, that's why Australia is indistinguishable from North Korea.

You Americans don't half love your hyperbole, particularly with regards to your sacred Bill of Rights. It's just a dated list of legal principles of varying quality. The First Amendment isn't a bad principle, but it's not perfect, and it's certainly not an indispensable prerequisite for the very existence of legal rights for citizens.

And then there's the fabulously salty second amendment--why I remember when the right-wing racists right south of the border were questioning Michelle Obama's right to bare arms; but then were if anything, laudatory, about Melania's bare arms. But when it comes to the second amendment's application, the right south of the border seems to think the right is white, but blacks even possibly bearing arms is an abomination, and if the opportunity arises, should be gunned down by cops.

Well, they do draw the line at Hunter Biden bearing arms while smoking dope.

Though little Sadie Margie does seem to be interested in contemplating Hunter's wielding his bare "weapon" (to use a term used in servants' bawdy dialogue in Romeo and Juliet.

 

[Emily Lake]

Ok seems I have to make myself clearing for the people in the back.

I mean... yes?

Sorry Gospel, but sometimes you're clear as mud. I like you, I think you're an awesome dude, and I think we probably agree on a lot of stuff. But for the life of me, sometimes I just can't tell what the hell your position is. So far as I can tell, in this thread, you're hopping back and forth between both sides of this argument, and it varies by page.