The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends: bakers must pay 135 K

[Pop23]

Amazing actually.

The bakers justified their position based on morality.

I've been pointing out that gender segregated locker rooms/gym showers/and restrooms are also based on morality.

No, they are based on tabs and slots, something even toddlers can understand so why are you unable to?

No doubt! Humans have decided after milenia of experimentation that the public restroom configuration we use today is the most practicable everywhere in the world. Gay folks have been present in that calculation the entire time.Yet now since our little corner of time and space has updated the legal definition of marriage, somehow the time honored restroom configuration is in question.

Poppy's argument is a huge fail, just like his polygamy and pedophile arguments. He's clinging to this argument as his last resort because he's run out of ideas on how to oppress the gays. I wonder if he realizes just how far off base he has come with this silliness?

Heterophobe ^^^^

 

[Seawytch]

Pop, you're right. Bathrooms are absolutely 100% separate but equal.

Here's your prize, Poppy!

As were white only.

You created the argument, but can't defend the mess you made?

Well, Seawytch has just become another troll without any merit.

Pops you stupid old man, I'm agreeing with you. You're 100% correct. Restrooms are separate but equal. You have a case, you can sue. Go for it.

Oh, you don't actually want to sue...you're just trolling. Yeah, we know, Pops.

What did you do with your prize after winning the entire internets?

 

[Pop23]

Pop, you're right. Bathrooms are absolutely 100% separate but equal.

Here's your prize, Poppy!

As were white only.

You created the argument, but can't defend the mess you made?

Well, Seawytch has just become another troll without any merit.

Pops you stupid old man, I'm agreeing with you. You're 100% correct. Restrooms are separate but equal. You have a case, you can sue. Go for it.

Oh, you don't actually want to sue...you're just trolling. Yeah, we know, Pops.

What did you do with your prize after winning the entire internets?

You don't actually answer the question.

Is gender segregation good public policy?

 

[Skylar]

Amazing actually.

The bakers justified their position based on morality.

I've been pointing out that gender segregated locker rooms/gym showers/and restrooms are also based on morality.

No, they are based on tabs and slots, something even toddlers can understand so why are you unable to?

No doubt! Humans have decided after milenia of experimentation that the public restroom configuration we use today is the most practicable everywhere in the world. Gay folks have been present in that calculation the entire time.Yet now since our little corner of time and space has updated the legal definition of marriage, somehow the time honored restroom configuration is in question.

Gays have shared gender specific restrooms

Some felt race specific restrooms were constitutionally fine as well.

Sexual orientation isn't the relative criteria in bathrooms. Gender is. You might as well be citing favorite color for as much relevance as it has to this situation.

Are you starting to see why your predictions are so consistently irrelevant to the real world? Why every single thing you insist must happen......never actually has?

As it was with the marriage laws were gender based not sexual orientation based. Changing those that are considered "similarily situated" did not just change those eligible to marry, and so we aree back to the basic argument. Does gender matter.

In the case of marriage same sex couples were denied the union. Yet who is denied a restroom based on their gender or sexual orientation?

No one.

And thus your silly little argument breaks again with the slightest application of common sense. And you demonstrate yet again why your pseudo-legal gibberish is predictably wrong and lacks any application in the real world.

And why your every prediction is laughably, comically, ineptly wrong.

 

[Seawytch]

Pop, you're right. Bathrooms are absolutely 100% separate but equal.

Here's your prize, Poppy!

As were white only.

You created the argument, but can't defend the mess you made?

Well, Seawytch has just become another troll without any merit.

Pops you stupid old man, I'm agreeing with you. You're 100% correct. Restrooms are separate but equal. You have a case, you can sue. Go for it.

Oh, you don't actually want to sue...you're just trolling. Yeah, we know, Pops.

What did you do with your prize after winning the entire internets?

You don't actually answer the question.

Is gender segregation good public policy?

In public restrooms it is. But by gender association, not gender, amigo.

Now hurry along, there are windmills to tilt at.

 

[Skylar]

No doubt! Humans have decided after milenia of experimentation that the public restroom configuration we use today is the most practicable everywhere in the world. Gay folks have been present in that calculation the entire time.Yet now since our little corner of time and space has updated the legal definition of marriage, somehow the time honored restroom configuration is in question.

Poppy's argument is a huge fail, just like his polygamy and pedophile arguments. He's clinging to this argument as his last resort because he's run out of ideas on how to oppress the gays. I wonder if he realizes just how far off base he has come with this silliness?

No doubt his argument has been used and ridiculed for milenia. This is nothing new for humanity. We have it right just the way it is. If there were a problem with it it would have been worked out long before us. Some people just don't learn from the past . They have to experience the fail themselves before they get it. We call them fools.

Yes, time stands still.

And blacks still have seperate facilities too.

And how is a ladies room not a 'full and complete accommodation'?

And how was black only restrooms not a "full and compete accomodation?

Can I take it with your response being a question that you have no answer?

If you can't demonstrate a lack of 'full and complete accommodation', you can hardly claim a PA violation has occurred.

Which might explain why your pseudo-legal babble about bathrooms has never played out in the real world. And a ladies room has never been found to be a violation of any PA law in any state.

Do you ever get tired of being perfectly wrong?

 

[Faun]

I think it has gone beyond a melt down at this point, and is now a complete break down.

Just seeking equality for similarly situated citizens.

Why do you continue justifying the bigoted rainbow Jim crow laws that would put one similarily situated individual in jail, while the other would be free?

Sounds like you are simply today's newest bigot.

Justice for all!

Straight lives matter!

If that's what you're truly seeking, then why do you flat out refuse to answer the question .... what is the compelling interest in separating blacks from whites in bathrooms??

I never said I wanted gender neutral restrooms/lockers/showers. That's a false premise.

The question is, what legal argument can there be to allow this segregation against similar situated citizens, regardless if I want it or not?

And I did answer the question.

Blacks were judged to be similarily situated as whites, so the segregation of restrooms were deemed discrimination.

I never said you wanted it. I challenged you for the compelling interest that would have permitted such bathrooms. You can't site any because there were none beyond discrimination, which was unlawful.

The same cannot be said about different genders using the same bathroom. That's the part which exposes you as a flaming imbecile.

There is ZERO acceptable discrimination between similar situated individuals.

What part of this are you failing to grasp.

It's obvious you want this segregation, but can't come up with a single sound legal reason that a married lesbian can access a locker room that a married male can't even though the two have been deemed similar situated by the courts.

Strange logic you exhibit.

You're too stupid to converse with. Of course there's a compelling interest to separate people by gender in bathrooms. Privacy.

 

[Pop23]

Pop, you're right. Bathrooms are absolutely 100% separate but equal.

Here's your prize, Poppy!

As were white only.

You created the argument, but can't defend the mess you made?

Well, Seawytch has just become another troll without any merit.

Pops you stupid old man, I'm agreeing with you. You're 100% correct. Restrooms are separate but equal. You have a case, you can sue. Go for it.

Oh, you don't actually want to sue...you're just trolling. Yeah, we know, Pops.

What did you do with your prize after winning the entire internets?

You don't actually answer the question.

Is gender segregation good public policy?

In public restrooms it is. But by gender association, not gender, amigo.

Now hurry along, there are windmills to tilt at.

Oh, so discrimination is acceptable because one of the couples in the example have an ability that the other does not?

Because one set has a different set of "tools" that the other does not?

Wasn't the discriminated couple "born that way?" Can they help that?

 

[Pop23]

Just seeking equality for similarly situated citizens.

Why do you continue justifying the bigoted rainbow Jim crow laws that would put one similarily situated individual in jail, while the other would be free?

Sounds like you are simply today's newest bigot.

Justice for all!

Straight lives matter!

If that's what you're truly seeking, then why do you flat out refuse to answer the question .... what is the compelling interest in separating blacks from whites in bathrooms??

I never said I wanted gender neutral restrooms/lockers/showers. That's a false premise.

The question is, what legal argument can there be to allow this segregation against similar situated citizens, regardless if I want it or not?

And I did answer the question.

Blacks were judged to be similarily situated as whites, so the segregation of restrooms were deemed discrimination.

I never said you wanted it. I challenged you for the compelling interest that would have permitted such bathrooms. You can't site any because there were none beyond discrimination, which was unlawful.

The same cannot be said about different genders using the same bathroom. That's the part which exposes you as a flaming imbecile.

There is ZERO acceptable discrimination between similar situated individuals.

What part of this are you failing to grasp.

It's obvious you want this segregation, but can't come up with a single sound legal reason that a married lesbian can access a locker room that a married male can't even though the two have been deemed similar situated by the courts.

Strange logic you exhibit.

You're too stupid to converse with. Of course there's a compelling interest to separate people by gender in bathrooms. Privacy.

You still have the argument wrong. The State must prove a compelling interest in the denial of a right, not that the state has that interest.

And privacy? From what? Being leered at by someone sexually attracted to them? A lesbian is attracted to women in the same way as a male. Your argument is without merit.

 

[Pop23]

Poppy's argument is a huge fail, just like his polygamy and pedophile arguments. He's clinging to this argument as his last resort because he's run out of ideas on how to oppress the gays. I wonder if he realizes just how far off base he has come with this silliness?

No doubt his argument has been used and ridiculed for milenia. This is nothing new for humanity. We have it right just the way it is. If there were a problem with it it would have been worked out long before us. Some people just don't learn from the past . They have to experience the fail themselves before they get it. We call them fools.

Yes, time stands still.

And blacks still have seperate facilities too.

And how is a ladies room not a 'full and complete accommodation'?

And how was black only restrooms not a "full and compete accomodation?

Can I take it with your response being a question that you have no answer?

If you can't demonstrate a lack of 'full and complete accommodation', you can hardly claim a PA violation has occurred.

Which might explain why your pseudo-legal babble about bathrooms has never played out in the real world. And a ladies room has never been found to be a violation of any PA law in any state.

Do you ever get tired of being perfectly wrong?

So a gym could legally have equal accomodations for Blacks, seperate from Whites and not be sued for discrimination?

How's that work in the real world?

 

[Faun]

You realize a lesbian looks at females sexually exactly the same way as males, right?

Big deal. Gay men look at men the way straight women do. Your dog won't hunt, give it up.

You think that's a compelling argument?

Gay married men can access areas that straight women cannot.

Reason why marriedgays can access areas together that married straights cannot?

Get with it dude.

This is the future you created, and we all have to deal with.

So deal with it and atop deflecting!
Bottom line: this is nothing more, or less than the lunch counter issue.
If you operate a business that is open to the general public, you do not have the the right to refuse service to anyone based on race, religion, creed, culture, sex, or sexual orientation- period.
You've done your best for pages and pages to deflect and misdirect.
Ain't working!
Give it up!

Thank you,

Now get a grip.

That access is more than simply the lunch counter, and yes, as was the case with the lunch counter (similarily situated customers) will be with locker/showers.

Gyms are businesses.

A baker refuses a cake to a few.

Gyms refuse access to millions.

Huh? Who are gyms refusing access to?

 

[Skylar]

No doubt his argument has been used and ridiculed for milenia. This is nothing new for humanity. We have it right just the way it is. If there were a problem with it it would have been worked out long before us. Some people just don't learn from the past . They have to experience the fail themselves before they get it. We call them fools.

Yes, time stands still.

And blacks still have seperate facilities too.

And how is a ladies room not a 'full and complete accommodation'?

And how was black only restrooms not a "full and compete accomodation?

Can I take it with your response being a question that you have no answer?

If you can't demonstrate a lack of 'full and complete accommodation', you can hardly claim a PA violation has occurred.

Which might explain why your pseudo-legal babble about bathrooms has never played out in the real world. And a ladies room has never been found to be a violation of any PA law in any state.

Do you ever get tired of being perfectly wrong?

So a gym could legally have equal accomodations for Blacks, seperate from Whites and not be sued for discrimination?

How's that work in the real world?

And another question with a question. I've apparently got you stumped cold:

How is a ladies room not a 'full and complete accommodation'. Your answer is......jack shit. Avoidance. Evasion.

So riddle me this, batman......if gendered bathrooms are the PA violation that you imagine, how do you explain that no state, no court, no PA board has ever found your claim to be true, nor ruled that a gendered bathroom constitutes a PA violation?

Laughing......once again the bug of your pseudo-legal gibberish hits the windshield of reality.

 

[Skylar]

If that's what you're truly seeking, then why do you flat out refuse to answer the question .... what is the compelling interest in separating blacks from whites in bathrooms??

I never said I wanted gender neutral restrooms/lockers/showers. That's a false premise.

The question is, what legal argument can there be to allow this segregation against similar situated citizens, regardless if I want it or not?

And I did answer the question.

Blacks were judged to be similarily situated as whites, so the segregation of restrooms were deemed discrimination.

I never said you wanted it. I challenged you for the compelling interest that would have permitted such bathrooms. You can't site any because there were none beyond discrimination, which was unlawful.

The same cannot be said about different genders using the same bathroom. That's the part which exposes you as a flaming imbecile.

There is ZERO acceptable discrimination between similar situated individuals.

What part of this are you failing to grasp.

It's obvious you want this segregation, but can't come up with a single sound legal reason that a married lesbian can access a locker room that a married male can't even though the two have been deemed similar situated by the courts.

Strange logic you exhibit.

You're too stupid to converse with. Of course there's a compelling interest to separate people by gender in bathrooms. Privacy.

You still have the argument wrong. The State must prove a compelling interest in the denial of a right, not that the state has that interest.

And what right is being denied? You can't even tell us how a ladies room is not a full and complete accommodation.

Sigh.......you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

 

[Faun]

If that's what you're truly seeking, then why do you flat out refuse to answer the question .... what is the compelling interest in separating blacks from whites in bathrooms??

I never said I wanted gender neutral restrooms/lockers/showers. That's a false premise.

The question is, what legal argument can there be to allow this segregation against similar situated citizens, regardless if I want it or not?

And I did answer the question.

Blacks were judged to be similarily situated as whites, so the segregation of restrooms were deemed discrimination.

I never said you wanted it. I challenged you for the compelling interest that would have permitted such bathrooms. You can't site any because there were none beyond discrimination, which was unlawful.

The same cannot be said about different genders using the same bathroom. That's the part which exposes you as a flaming imbecile.

There is ZERO acceptable discrimination between similar situated individuals.

What part of this are you failing to grasp.

It's obvious you want this segregation, but can't come up with a single sound legal reason that a married lesbian can access a locker room that a married male can't even though the two have been deemed similar situated by the courts.

Strange logic you exhibit.

You're too stupid to converse with. Of course there's a compelling interest to separate people by gender in bathrooms. Privacy.

You still have the argument wrong. The State must prove a compelling interest in the denial of a right, not that the state has that interest.

And privacy? From what? Being leered at by someone sexually attracted to them? A lesbian is attracted to women in the same way as a male. Your argument is without merit.

Privacy is a compelling interest. You don't like that because there is no legal compelling interest in separating people by race.

 

[Seawytch]

Bathrooms are not a Public Accommodation issue, they are a separate but equal issue. They are not equal. Women's restrooms are far superior. Pops has a case, but he won't sue, just troll.

 

[ChrisL]

No doubt his argument has been used and ridiculed for milenia. This is nothing new for humanity. We have it right just the way it is. If there were a problem with it it would have been worked out long before us. Some people just don't learn from the past . They have to experience the fail themselves before they get it. We call them fools.

Yes, time stands still.

And blacks still have seperate facilities too.

And how is a ladies room not a 'full and complete accommodation'?

And how was black only restrooms not a "full and compete accomodation?

Can I take it with your response being a question that you have no answer?

If you can't demonstrate a lack of 'full and complete accommodation', you can hardly claim a PA violation has occurred.

Which might explain why your pseudo-legal babble about bathrooms has never played out in the real world. And a ladies room has never been found to be a violation of any PA law in any state.

Do you ever get tired of being perfectly wrong?

So a gym could legally have equal accomodations for Blacks, seperate from Whites and not be sued for discrimination?

How's that work in the real world?

That is not the same as separating by gender, you idiot. Women don't want to share a shower with you, you weirdo.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, time stands still.

And blacks still have seperate facilities too.

And how is a ladies room not a 'full and complete accommodation'?

And how was black only restrooms not a "full and compete accomodation?

Can I take it with your response being a question that you have no answer?

If you can't demonstrate a lack of 'full and complete accommodation', you can hardly claim a PA violation has occurred.

Which might explain why your pseudo-legal babble about bathrooms has never played out in the real world. And a ladies room has never been found to be a violation of any PA law in any state.

Do you ever get tired of being perfectly wrong?

So a gym could legally have equal accomodations for Blacks, seperate from Whites and not be sued for discrimination?

How's that work in the real world?

And another question with a question. I've apparently got you stumped cold:

How is a ladies room not a 'full and complete accommodation'. Your answer is......jack shit. Avoidance. Evasion.

So riddle me this, batman......if gendered bathrooms are the PA violation that you imagine, how do you explain that no state, no court, no PA board has ever found your claim to be true, nor ruled that a gendered bathroom constitutes a PA violation?

Laughing......once again the bug of your pseudo-legal gibberish hits the windshield of reality.

Have the been challenged?

When was the first Baker sued for refusing to make a gay marriage wedding cake?

How is a Black only restroom not full acommodation?

Laughing my ass off.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, time stands still.

And blacks still have seperate facilities too.

And how is a ladies room not a 'full and complete accommodation'?

And how was black only restrooms not a "full and compete accomodation?

Can I take it with your response being a question that you have no answer?

If you can't demonstrate a lack of 'full and complete accommodation', you can hardly claim a PA violation has occurred.

Which might explain why your pseudo-legal babble about bathrooms has never played out in the real world. And a ladies room has never been found to be a violation of any PA law in any state.

Do you ever get tired of being perfectly wrong?

So a gym could legally have equal accomodations for Blacks, seperate from Whites and not be sued for discrimination?

How's that work in the real world?

That is not the same as separating by gender, you idiot. Women don't want to share a shower with you, you weirdo.

But they do with lesbians who view them the same way as males.

Should the lesbian be thrown in jail for exposing herself to a female the same way a male would be? Put on a sex offenders list?

 

[Faun]

No doubt! Humans have decided after milenia of experimentation that the public restroom configuration we use today is the most practicable everywhere in the world. Gay folks have been present in that calculation the entire time.Yet now since our little corner of time and space has updated the legal definition of marriage, somehow the time honored restroom configuration is in question.

Poppy's argument is a huge fail, just like his polygamy and pedophile arguments. He's clinging to this argument as his last resort because he's run out of ideas on how to oppress the gays. I wonder if he realizes just how far off base he has come with this silliness?

No doubt his argument has been used and ridiculed for milenia. This is nothing new for humanity. We have it right just the way it is. If there were a problem with it it would have been worked out long before us. Some people just don't learn from the past . They have to experience the fail themselves before they get it. We call them fools.

Yes, time stands still.

And blacks still have seperate facilities too.

And how is a ladies room not a 'full and complete accommodation'?

And how was black only restrooms not a "full and compete accomodation?

There is no legal compelling argument for it.

 

[ChrisL]

And how is a ladies room not a 'full and complete accommodation'?

And how was black only restrooms not a "full and compete accomodation?

Can I take it with your response being a question that you have no answer?

If you can't demonstrate a lack of 'full and complete accommodation', you can hardly claim a PA violation has occurred.

Which might explain why your pseudo-legal babble about bathrooms has never played out in the real world. And a ladies room has never been found to be a violation of any PA law in any state.

Do you ever get tired of being perfectly wrong?

So a gym could legally have equal accomodations for Blacks, seperate from Whites and not be sued for discrimination?

How's that work in the real world?

That is not the same as separating by gender, you idiot. Women don't want to share a shower with you, you weirdo.

But they do with lesbians who view them the same way as males.

Should the lesbian be thrown in jail for exposing herself to a female the same way a male would be? Put on a sex offenders list?

Does she have a vagina and breasts?