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

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?

Forever. Gays have been using the appropriate gendered restrooms your entire life. Nothing has changed since they can now legally marry. If you want to shower with your spouse, you now have equal access to gay marriage and can do so at your pleasure.
 
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.

Pop's meltdown continues.

He is outraged that he is not allowed in the women's locker room, outraged that there are now gender neutral bathrooms(apparently not noticing the gender neutral family bathrooms that exist in most major venues) and just really outraged that gay people can get married.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top