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

[OKTexas]

There were about 360 other bakeries in the area, why did the faghadist pick that one? Did they have previous knowledge they would likely be refused? Were they just looking for a payday? Did anyone ask them under oath?

You got any answers to these? Don't tell me these questions are irrelevant either because they would be relevant do determining this so called harm.

They liked the wedding cake they bought there before, for the wedding of one of the mothers. And the payday the state provided because the vendor broke the law.

That answers one question, you gonna try the rest?

No need, that answers all. It's in the public record, look it up for yourself.

So you don't know, no shame in that.

Since this was never in court, your questions matter not.

It hasn't been to court, yet.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They liked the wedding cake they bought there before, for the wedding of one of the mothers. And the payday the state provided because the vendor broke the law.

That answers one question, you gonna try the rest?

No need, that answers all. It's in the public record, look it up for yourself.

So you don't know, no shame in that.

Since this was never in court, your questions matter not.

It hasn't been to court, yet.

That's correct, but when that happens it will be the state versus the bakers. This is not one couple suing another, and never has been.

 

[OKTexas]

That answers one question, you gonna try the rest?

No need, that answers all. It's in the public record, look it up for yourself.

So you don't know, no shame in that.

Since this was never in court, your questions matter not.

It hasn't been to court, yet.

That's correct, but when that happens it will be the state versus the bakers. This is not one couple suing another, and never has been.

If you think the faghadist won't be deposed you're delusional. Their complaint is the basis for the judgment.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No need, that answers all. It's in the public record, look it up for yourself.

So you don't know, no shame in that.

Since this was never in court, your questions matter not.

It hasn't been to court, yet.

That's correct, but when that happens it will be the state versus the bakers. This is not one couple suing another, and never has been.

If you think the faghadist won't be deposed you're delusional. Their complaint is the basis for the judgment.

Doesn't matter a damn if they are or not, the suit would be against the state, not them. I'm sure they will have no trouble telling the story again, it's not complicated.

 

[AugmentedDog]

Time to appeal to the courts, the fags suffered no harm, they got their ******* cake elsewhere.

You are a bigoted hateful jackass.
You haven't a clue what harm schmucks like you cause, but I am certain you do care - you hope to hurt as deeply as you can.
I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!

Feel better?



Now explain why hurt feelings is worth $135,000. Should I get that much from you, after all you tried to hurt my feelings.

Poor baby!
Take it to court.
Of course my comment was in response to your use of the word "fags" as demeaning epithet. So, who was it that first slung poison arrows with specific intent to injure?
I only stated fact. You deliberately intended to devalue and dehumanize an entire class of people.

 

[OKTexas]

Time to appeal to the courts, the fags suffered no harm, they got their ******* cake elsewhere.

You are a bigoted hateful jackass.
You haven't a clue what harm schmucks like you cause, but I am certain you do care - you hope to hurt as deeply as you can.
I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!

Feel better?



Now explain why hurt feelings is worth $135,000. Should I get that much from you, after all you tried to hurt my feelings.

Poor baby!
Take it to court.
Of course my comment was in response to your use of the word "fags" as demeaning epithet. So, who was it that first slung poison arrows with specific intent to injure?
I only stated fact. You deliberately intended to devalue and dehumanize an entire class of people.

Bull shit, only a *** couple that set out to destroy another couple over a cake, when there were more than 300 other bakeries to chose from. The fags didn't care about the cake, they were pushing an agenda. Only really small, pathetic people do that kind of crap. adults would have moved on.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Time to appeal to the courts, the fags suffered no harm, they got their ******* cake elsewhere.

You are a bigoted hateful jackass.
You haven't a clue what harm schmucks like you cause, but I am certain you do care - you hope to hurt as deeply as you can.
I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!

Feel better?



Now explain why hurt feelings is worth $135,000. Should I get that much from you, after all you tried to hurt my feelings.

Poor baby!
Take it to court.
Of course my comment was in response to your use of the word "fags" as demeaning epithet. So, who was it that first slung poison arrows with specific intent to injure?
I only stated fact. You deliberately intended to devalue and dehumanize an entire class of people.

Bull shit, only a *** couple that set out to destroy another couple over a cake, when there were more than 300 other bakeries to chose from. The fags didn't care about the cake, they were pushing an agenda. Only really small, pathetic people do that kind of crap. adults would have moved on.

Your homophobic agenda is not the reality in this case.

 

[OKTexas]

Time to appeal to the courts, the fags suffered no harm, they got their ******* cake elsewhere.

You are a bigoted hateful jackass.
You haven't a clue what harm schmucks like you cause, but I am certain you do care - you hope to hurt as deeply as you can.
I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!

Feel better?



Now explain why hurt feelings is worth $135,000. Should I get that much from you, after all you tried to hurt my feelings.

Poor baby!
Take it to court.
Of course my comment was in response to your use of the word "fags" as demeaning epithet. So, who was it that first slung poison arrows with specific intent to injure?
I only stated fact. You deliberately intended to devalue and dehumanize an entire class of people.

Bull shit, only a *** couple that set out to destroy another couple over a cake, when there were more than 300 other bakeries to chose from. The fags didn't care about the cake, they were pushing an agenda. Only really small, pathetic people do that kind of crap. adults would have moved on.

Your homophobic agenda is not the reality in this case.

Your alenskyite labels mean nothing to me, go label someone who gives a shit.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You are a bigoted hateful jackass.
You haven't a clue what harm schmucks like you cause, but I am certain you do care - you hope to hurt as deeply as you can.
I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!

Feel better?



Now explain why hurt feelings is worth $135,000. Should I get that much from you, after all you tried to hurt my feelings.

Poor baby!
Take it to court.
Of course my comment was in response to your use of the word "fags" as demeaning epithet. So, who was it that first slung poison arrows with specific intent to injure?
I only stated fact. You deliberately intended to devalue and dehumanize an entire class of people.

Bull shit, only a *** couple that set out to destroy another couple over a cake, when there were more than 300 other bakeries to chose from. The fags didn't care about the cake, they were pushing an agenda. Only really small, pathetic people do that kind of crap. adults would have moved on.

Your homophobic agenda is not the reality in this case.

Your alenskyite labels mean nothing to me, go label someone who gives a shit.

Alinsky. Get the man's goddamned name right at least.

 

[OKTexas]

Feel better?



Now explain why hurt feelings is worth $135,000. Should I get that much from you, after all you tried to hurt my feelings.

Poor baby!
Take it to court.
Of course my comment was in response to your use of the word "fags" as demeaning epithet. So, who was it that first slung poison arrows with specific intent to injure?
I only stated fact. You deliberately intended to devalue and dehumanize an entire class of people.

Bull shit, only a *** couple that set out to destroy another couple over a cake, when there were more than 300 other bakeries to chose from. The fags didn't care about the cake, they were pushing an agenda. Only really small, pathetic people do that kind of crap. adults would have moved on.

Your homophobic agenda is not the reality in this case.

Your alenskyite labels mean nothing to me, go label someone who gives a shit.

Alinsky. Get the man's goddamned name right at least.

He's dead, he doesn't care.

 

[Faun]

I have no problem. I've been saying for years that gays should be allowed to marry; otherwise their equal protection was being violated. The U.S.S.C. decision proved I was right.

As far as differences between a married lesbian and straight male ... their gender.

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

Where is the discrimination? Both have access to locker rooms?

Separate but equal.

Yes indeed, I did love that, too bad.

I asked who, in your locker room example, is being discriminated against.

By your non-sequitur response, I can only conclude -- no one is.

Thanks!

Jesus, how many times did you need that answered.

A married lesbian couple may enter a room together, the straight couple cannot. In this example the straight couple is being discriminated against and the male could be arrested for a sex offense!

That is unless, he claims to be TRANSGENDER.

Seriously folks, you can't make this stuff up.

As someone else already pointed out to you -- locker rooms are available for individual use, not couples' use. So there is still no discrimination no matter how hard you try to invent one -- everyone, regardless of gender, race, religion, and sexual preference has access to the locker room.

Until recently, gays did not have access to marry the person they love; which is the main purpose of marriage.

 

[Faun]

And Pop's meltdown continues.

But I applaud his efforts to gain access to the women's showers.

You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?

They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?

You crack me up Wytch.

For 40 years you've been allowed in locker/shower rooms of the gender you find the most attracted too. And I don't doubt you spend MORE THAN THE AVERAGE TIME IN THEM.

Do the straight women know you're in there simply to check them out?

Cheaper then lez porn, huh?

Locker rooms aren't available for whom you find attractive. WTF is wrong with you?

They are to lesbians and gay males!

Nice try (not really)

Too ******* stupid. That's not the purpose of a locker room.

 

[ChrisL]

Old Pops is getting his butt handed to him . . . again. It's pretty obvious that he has a very poor understanding of the laws and jurisdiction. What will he come up with next? That should be interesting.

 

[JoeB131]

Is there any point to this post?

Yes. Have someone help you with the big words, Cleetus.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There were about 360 other bakeries in the area, why did the faghadist pick that one?

Because it was the same shop that had provide the wedding cake a couple of years earlier for one of the couples mother.

Did they have previous knowledge they would likely be refused?

No, they were looking for a wedding cake.

Were they just looking for a payday?

No, they were looking for a wedding cake. Not to be called an abomination.

Did anyone ask them under oath?

Yes

You got any answers to these?

Yes, they are part of the court record.

Don't tell me these questions are irrelevant either because they would be relevant do determining this so called harm.

The answers which you seek are actually in the court record and were agreed to by the Kleins as they were uncontested.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

They are accommodated equally. Remember, no court, no state, no legal authority has ever found that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws. Rendering your assertion more hapless nonsense that has no reflection in reality.

Predicting nothing, nor having the slightest relevance to any law. With your record of failure remaining perfect.

I mean, the law of averages alone would mandate that eventually you'd get something right. Yet you somehow always find a way to be wrong every single time. With your predictions and legal interpretations of everything from incest to poly marriage to gendered bathrooms demonstrated to be pseudo-legal gibberish by history.

Says who? Remembering of course that you citing yourself is meaningless babble.

Are you now saying that gender really does matter?

You cannot claim similarity when it suits you, then claim you are not when it suits your fancy.

The lesbian is allowed in the locker room with the wife, who the lesbian is sexually attracted to, but the husband (who the lesbian claims she is similar to) is not?

Why? Some kind of MORALITY play?

Hmmmmmm, sounds kinda familiar?

WTF is wrong with you? The primary purposes of a locker room is to shower or get changed. Everyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference has access to that. The primary purpose of marriage is to make a life long commitment to the person you love. Homosexuals were denied that right.

Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.

Everyone has access to cake also

The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.

A bathroom isn't public business. Rendering your argument laughably pseudo-legal gibberish. As PA laws apply only to business. And what service is someone denied by gendered bathrooms? Nothing.

Remember, no court, no state, no legal authority has ever found that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws. Rendering your assertion more hapless nonsense that has no reflection in reality.

Predicting nothing, nor having the slightest relevance to any law. With your record of failure remaining perfect.

I mean, the law of averages alone would mandate that eventually you'd get something right. Yet you somehow always find a way to be wrong every single time. With your predictions and legal interpretations of everything from incest to poly marriage to gendered bathrooms demonstrated to be meaningless babble by history.

Try building a business without restrooms dummy, the government will deny you a permit! That makes it part of access laws.

Bathrooms aren't a good or service being sold to anyone. PA laws apply only to public business. Which might explain why nothing you've predicted, nor any of your pseudo-legal gibberish has ever had the slightest relevance to the real world.

Everything you've ever predicted as been wrong. On essentially any topic I've ever seen discussed. Incest marriage, same sex marriage, bathrooms, PA laws, everything. Your record of failure has been perfect.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

And neither are gym lockers/showers?

Women only workout rooms?

Hmmmm, I hear those advertised almost daily.

 

[Pop23]

You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?

They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?

You crack me up Wytch.

For 40 years you've been allowed in locker/shower rooms of the gender you find the most attracted too. And I don't doubt you spend MORE THAN THE AVERAGE TIME IN THEM.

Do the straight women know you're in there simply to check them out?

Cheaper then lez porn, huh?

Locker rooms aren't available for whom you find attractive. WTF is wrong with you?

They are to lesbians and gay males!

Nice try (not really)

Your criteria of bathroom use is irrelevant. They aren't designated per sexual orientation. But per gender.

Making all of your babble about sexual orientation more meaningless gibberish. You might as well be citing favorite color for as much relevance as your claims have to actual law or any real world outcome.

Do you have anything else? Or is this it?

Why not answer about showers/lockers. That was my example after all

 

[Pop23]

You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?

They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?

You crack me up Wytch.

For 40 years you've been allowed in locker/shower rooms of the gender you find the most attracted too. And I don't doubt you spend MORE THAN THE AVERAGE TIME IN THEM.

Do the straight women know you're in there simply to check them out?

Cheaper then lez porn, huh?

Locker rooms aren't available for whom you find attractive. WTF is wrong with you?

They are to lesbians and gay males!

Nice try (not really)

Your criteria of bathroom use is irrelevant. They aren't designated per sexual orientation. But per gender.

Making all of your babble about sexual orientation more meaningless gibberish. You might as well be citing favorite color for as much relevance as your claims have to actual law or any real world outcome.

Do you have anything else? Or is this it?

Read the oregon PA law. You are not allowed to discriminate based on sex or sexual orientation. Straight is an orientation.

 

[Seawytch]

You know what is soooo ironic about ya'll invoking Hitler and the Nazi's in this debate? These are the kinds of signs you want put up.

Except they say this.

 

[Pop23]

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

Where is the discrimination? Both have access to locker rooms?

Separate but equal.

Yes indeed, I did love that, too bad.

I asked who, in your locker room example, is being discriminated against.

By your non-sequitur response, I can only conclude -- no one is.

Thanks!

Jesus, how many times did you need that answered.

A married lesbian couple may enter a room together, the straight couple cannot. In this example the straight couple is being discriminated against and the male could be arrested for a sex offense!

That is unless, he claims to be TRANSGENDER.

Seriously folks, you can't make this stuff up.

As someone else already pointed out to you -- locker rooms are available for individual use, not couples' use. So there is still no discrimination no matter how hard you try to invent one -- everyone, regardless of gender, race, religion, and sexual preference has access to the locker room.

Until recently, gays did not have access to marry the person they love; which is the main purpose of marriage.

So a couple does not equal two individuals?