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

[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?

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.

You are the one who is being laughed at. You are making a complete fool of yourself. You display a very poor understanding of the laws.

 

[Pop23]

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.

So your going to deny a heterosexuals right to be treated as similarily situated to homosexuals because lesbians because of privacy issues? Privacy from what? Being leered at by someone who might find them sexually attracted to them? Lesbians look at women the same way men do.

There are other bigoted folk that want privacy from blacks.

That didn't work out so well.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You are the one who is being laughed at. You are making a complete fool of yourself. You display a very poor understanding of the laws.

Bigot

 

[Skylar]

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?

You tell me. You're the one who insists this is a PA violation. Just show us an example of a gendered bathroom being recognized as a PA violation.

If you can't, then once again your assertions are demonstrated to be meaningless gibberish. As what you insist must happen....never does. Just like all your incest marriage nonsense and polygamy nonsense didn't happen.

So....please present your examples of gendered bathrooms being recognized as PA violations by any State.

I suspect all we'll get are excuses why you can't.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Of course. That biology does not matter.

What, are you 80? Get with the times.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So your going to deny a heterosexuals right to be treated as similarily situated to homosexuals because lesbians because of privacy issues? Privacy from what? Being leered at by someone who might find them sexually attracted to them? Lesbians look at women the same way men do.

There are other bigoted folk that want privacy from blacks.

That didn't work out so well.

Sexuality isn't the basis of gendered bathrooms. Your fallacy fails again.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Of course. That biology does not matter.

What, are you 80? Get with the times.

You get with the times, old fool.

 

[Faun]

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.

So your going to deny a heterosexuals right to be treated as similarily situated to homosexuals because lesbians because of privacy issues? Privacy from what? Being leered at by someone who might find them sexually attracted to them? Lesbians look at women the same way men do.

There are other bigoted folk that want privacy from blacks.

That didn't work out so well.

Privacy based on skin color is not a compelling interest. As even you point out, it's bigotry.

 

[Pop23]

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?

You tell me. You're the one who insists this is a PA violation. Just show us an example of a gendered bathroom being recognized as a PA violation.

If you can't, then once again your assertions are demonstrated to be meaningless gibberish. As what you insist must happen....never does. Just like all your incest marriage nonsense and polygamy nonsense didn't happen.

So....please present your examples of gendered bathrooms being recognized as PA violations by any State.

I suspect all we'll get are excuses why you can't.

How long has it been since same sex couples were deemed similarily situated to opposite sex couples?

 

[ChrisL]

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?

You tell me. You're the one who insists this is a PA violation. Just show us an example of a gendered bathroom being recognized as a PA violation.

If you can't, then once again your assertions are demonstrated to be meaningless gibberish. As what you insist must happen....never does. Just like all your incest marriage nonsense and polygamy nonsense didn't happen.

So....please present your examples of gendered bathrooms being recognized as PA violations by any State.

I suspect all we'll get are excuses why you can't.

Of course. Pops has an extreme case of homophobia. Lol. Those homosexuals are going to ruin his marriage you know!!! How weak. He is a very weak person obviously.

 

[Pop23]

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.

So your going to deny a heterosexuals right to be treated as similarily situated to homosexuals because lesbians because of privacy issues? Privacy from what? Being leered at by someone who might find them sexually attracted to them? Lesbians look at women the same way men do.

There are other bigoted folk that want privacy from blacks.

That didn't work out so well.

Privacy based on skin color is not a compelling interest. As even you point out, it's bigotry.

Not to you, but your an idiot that doesn't understand the concept of compelling interest,

So you got that going for you.

 

[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.

Still waiting for an answer .... to whom are gyms denying access...?

 

[Pop23]

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?

You tell me. You're the one who insists this is a PA violation. Just show us an example of a gendered bathroom being recognized as a PA violation.

If you can't, then once again your assertions are demonstrated to be meaningless gibberish. As what you insist must happen....never does. Just like all your incest marriage nonsense and polygamy nonsense didn't happen.

So....please present your examples of gendered bathrooms being recognized as PA violations by any State.

I suspect all we'll get are excuses why you can't.

Of course. Pops has an extreme case of homophobia. Lol. Those homosexuals are going to ruin his marriage you know!!! How weak. He is a very weak person obviously.

How does me and my wife sharing a locker room effect your gay marriage?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Still waiting for an answer .... to whom are gyms denying access...?

I'm still waiting on how having a seperate but equal white only restroom is denying access?

 

[Faun]

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.

So your going to deny a heterosexuals right to be treated as similarily situated to homosexuals because lesbians because of privacy issues? Privacy from what? Being leered at by someone who might find them sexually attracted to them? Lesbians look at women the same way men do.

There are other bigoted folk that want privacy from blacks.

That didn't work out so well.

Privacy based on skin color is not a compelling interest. As even you point out, it's bigotry.

Not to you, but your an idiot that doesn't understand the concept of compelling interest,

So you got that going for you.

The irony you display is too funny. Thanks for the laugh, gramps!

 

[Faun]

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.

Still waiting for an answer .... to whom are gyms denying access...?

I'm still waiting on how having a seperate but equal white only restroom is denying access?

That question has been answered. You're just too fucking retarded to understand the answer.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an answer ... to whom are gyms denying access? You make claims even you can't defend.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So your going to deny a heterosexuals right to be treated as similarily situated to homosexuals because lesbians because of privacy issues? Privacy from what? Being leered at by someone who might find them sexually attracted to them? Lesbians look at women the same way men do.

There are other bigoted folk that want privacy from blacks.

That didn't work out so well.

Privacy based on skin color is not a compelling interest. As even you point out, it's bigotry.

Not to you, but your an idiot that doesn't understand the concept of compelling interest,

So you got that going for you.

So you say. And yet no state has ever found a compelling interest to do anything you've insisted must be done by way of gendered bathrooms, incest marriage or polygamy.

Its not every state and federal court in the nation that's wrong. Its just you.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

You tell me. You're the one who insists this is a PA violation. Just show us an example of a gendered bathroom being recognized as a PA violation.

If you can't, then once again your assertions are demonstrated to be meaningless gibberish. As what you insist must happen....never does. Just like all your incest marriage nonsense and polygamy nonsense didn't happen.

So....please present your examples of gendered bathrooms being recognized as PA violations by any State.

I suspect all we'll get are excuses why you can't.

Of course. Pops has an extreme case of homophobia. Lol. Those homosexuals are going to ruin his marriage you know!!! How weak. He is a very weak person obviously.

How does me and my wife sharing a locker room effect your gay marriage?

Well, I'm not gay, but leave it to an ignoramus like yourself to assume that. How does gay marriage affect your marriage is the more appropriate question here since you are the one coming up with all of these ridiculous scenarios to justify your fear of homosexuals.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

So your going to deny a heterosexuals right to be treated as similarily situated to homosexuals because lesbians because of privacy issues? Privacy from what? Being leered at by someone who might find them sexually attracted to them? Lesbians look at women the same way men do.

There are other bigoted folk that want privacy from blacks.

That didn't work out so well.

Privacy based on skin color is not a compelling interest. As even you point out, it's bigotry.

Not to you, but your an idiot that doesn't understand the concept of compelling interest,

So you got that going for you.

That is "you're" as in You Are. I think you need to worry more about your primary education than the complicated issues like laws. Lol.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Restrooms have never been or never will cater to couples. Your argument is ridiculous. If you want to shower with your spouse then go and get you one of those gay marriages. No one is stopping you.