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

[Pop23]

Ummm, dudes a male, in a woman's locker room.

She is transgender, but not completely yet obviously, and that doesn't help you at all because the woman is upset not about a spouse in her locker room, but a penis, which we can legally discriminate based upon.

She? Where's she stick the tampon?

She wouldn't need one, regardless of her junk. Many women don't, including XY females.

OMG.

Learn some biology today: Androgen insensitivity syndrome - Genetics Home Reference

And of course, only a true female would have a place in which to put a tampon.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is legal discrimination, bathrooms, and illegal discrimination, marriage licenses. Is this news to you? A lot of us got over this after taking baths with our sisters. Seems to be a problem for you still?

Ahhhhh, the marriage license issue was when your hero Justice Kennedy declared we were like situated.

See how easy that was, like playing dominoes.

So, you go ahead and bathe with your sister if you like, us adults will deal with the USSC's societal ramifications.

If this is your version of "dealing with it", I would hate to see what it's like when you don't. How about just dealing with equal bathrooms and equal standing before the law, instead of worrying about who might get aroused seeing others of their same sex standing around in their undies?

Lesbians get aroused looking at women (ask SeaWytch)

Men get aroused looking at women (ask me)

Making us similar situated.

And bisexuals like both. So what? Oh right, there's nothing that matters here at all.

Yet you keep answering my posts.

I do indeed love the power I have over you.

Now fetch

It's a public forum, and I mostly post for others to learn, from your mistakes.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

She is transgender, but not completely yet obviously, and that doesn't help you at all because the woman is upset not about a spouse in her locker room, but a penis, which we can legally discriminate based upon.

She? Where's she stick the tampon?

She wouldn't need one, regardless of her junk. Many women don't, including XY females.

OMG.

Learn some biology today: Androgen insensitivity syndrome - Genetics Home Reference

And of course, only a true female would have a place in which to put a tampon.

They have that, usually, they are female after all, they just don't need tampons, ever. No periods.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Of course he digs women...

More than likely not. Most people, even transgender people, are heterosexual. She most likely likes boys, not girls.

Yes, talk to Bruce Jenner bout dat

That I know of, he's either straight or bisexual. Tell us Pop, if two bisexuals marry what locker room should they use?

Yours

That works for me. I love to shower with cute girls.

 

[Syriusly]

No, it said they were equal. If the sign says Married People Only, and they are, they can both go in.

So it's ok to discriminate against groups, just not individuals.

So the sign SeaWytch posted saying "no queers allowed" is not discrimination?

Then, of course there's this link.....Woman Is Suing Planet Fitness Over Locker Room Policy The Daily Caller

Hmmmmmm

There is legal discrimination, bathrooms, and illegal discrimination, marriage licenses. Is this news to you? A lot of us got over this after taking baths with our sisters. Seems to be a problem for you still?

Ahhhhh, the marriage license issue was when your hero Justice Kennedy declared we were like situated.

See how easy that was, like playing dominoes.

So, you go ahead and bathe with your sister if you like, us adults will deal with the USSC's societal ramifications.

If this is your version of "dealing with it", I would hate to see what it's like when you don't. How about just dealing with equal bathrooms and equal standing before the law, instead of worrying about who might get aroused seeing others of their same sex standing around in their undies?

Lesbians get aroused looking at women (ask SeaWytch)

Men get aroused looking at women (ask me)

Making us similar situated.

So you are both homosexuals or you are both heterosexuals?

Still completely immaterial to your butt hurt about same gender marriage now being legal.

 

[Syriusly]

Can you stay focused for more than 2 seconds? You said some were being discriminated against. When it's pointed out to you that's false since no one is being discriminated against, you shift to separate but equal.

Meanwhile, there remains no discrimination in your silly example. Everyone has access to those same locker rooms regardless of their race, religion, gender, or sexual preference.

And again, compare that to SSM, where until recently, gays were denied access to their right to marry the person they love.

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

No, it said they were equal. If the sign says Married People Only, and they are, they can both go in.

So it's ok to discriminate against groups, just not individuals.

So the sign SeaWytch posted saying "no queers allowed" is not discrimination?

Then, of course there's this link.....Woman Is Suing Planet Fitness Over Locker Room Policy The Daily Caller

Hmmmmmm

There is legal discrimination, bathrooms, and illegal discrimination, marriage licenses. Is this news to you? A lot of us got over this after taking baths with our sisters. Seems to be a problem for you still?

Ahhhhh, the marriage license issue was when your hero Justice Kennedy declared we were like situated.

See how easy that was, like playing dominoes.

Pop demonstrating once again that he never actually read the decision.

 

[Pop23]

Of course he digs women...

More than likely not. Most people, even transgender people, are heterosexual. She most likely likes boys, not girls.

Yes, talk to Bruce Jenner bout dat

That I know of, he's either straight or bisexual. Tell us Pop, if two bisexuals marry what locker room should they use?

Yours

That works for me. I love to shower with cute girls.

Dude, it's a he. See above.

 

[Pop23]

So it's ok to discriminate against groups, just not individuals.

So the sign SeaWytch posted saying "no queers allowed" is not discrimination?

Then, of course there's this link.....Woman Is Suing Planet Fitness Over Locker Room Policy The Daily Caller

Hmmmmmm

There is legal discrimination, bathrooms, and illegal discrimination, marriage licenses. Is this news to you? A lot of us got over this after taking baths with our sisters. Seems to be a problem for you still?

Ahhhhh, the marriage license issue was when your hero Justice Kennedy declared we were like situated.

See how easy that was, like playing dominoes.

So, you go ahead and bathe with your sister if you like, us adults will deal with the USSC's societal ramifications.

If this is your version of "dealing with it", I would hate to see what it's like when you don't. How about just dealing with equal bathrooms and equal standing before the law, instead of worrying about who might get aroused seeing others of their same sex standing around in their undies?

Lesbians get aroused looking at women (ask SeaWytch)

Men get aroused looking at women (ask me)

Making us similar situated.

So you are both homosexuals or you are both heterosexuals?

Still completely immaterial to your butt hurt about same gender marriage now being legal.

To the delusional, yes

 

[Pop23]

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

No, it said they were equal. If the sign says Married People Only, and they are, they can both go in.

So it's ok to discriminate against groups, just not individuals.

So the sign SeaWytch posted saying "no queers allowed" is not discrimination?

Then, of course there's this link.....Woman Is Suing Planet Fitness Over Locker Room Policy The Daily Caller

Hmmmmmm

There is legal discrimination, bathrooms, and illegal discrimination, marriage licenses. Is this news to you? A lot of us got over this after taking baths with our sisters. Seems to be a problem for you still?

Ahhhhh, the marriage license issue was when your hero Justice Kennedy declared we were like situated.

See how easy that was, like playing dominoes.

Pop demonstrating once again that he never actually read the decision.

He affirmed earlier decisions

 

[Syriusly]

No, it said they were equal. If the sign says Married People Only, and they are, they can both go in.

So it's ok to discriminate against groups, just not individuals.

So the sign SeaWytch posted saying "no queers allowed" is not discrimination?

Then, of course there's this link.....Woman Is Suing Planet Fitness Over Locker Room Policy The Daily Caller

Hmmmmmm

There is legal discrimination, bathrooms, and illegal discrimination, marriage licenses. Is this news to you? A lot of us got over this after taking baths with our sisters. Seems to be a problem for you still?

Ahhhhh, the marriage license issue was when your hero Justice Kennedy declared we were like situated.

See how easy that was, like playing dominoes.

Pop demonstrating once again that he never actually read the decision.

He affirmed earlier decisions

Pop demonstrating once again that you have never actually read the decision.

 

[Faun]

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.

And they are not being discriminated against. They have the same access to lock rooms.

So having access to a separate but equal Civil Marriage was actually constitutional then.

Who's side are you on?

Can you stay focused for more than 2 seconds? You said some were being discriminated against. When it's pointed out to you that's false since no one is being discriminated against, you shift to separate but equal.

Meanwhile, there remains no discrimination in your silly example. Everyone has access to those same locker rooms regardless of their race, religion, gender, or sexual preference.

And again, compare that to SSM, where until recently, gays were denied access to their right to marry the person they love.

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

There is no such service as "escorting a spouse" into a locker room. Again, that is not the purpose of a locker room. The accommodations of a locker room are still made to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference.

No one is being discriminated against.

 

[Syriusly]

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

And they are not being discriminated against. They have the same access to lock rooms.

So having access to a separate but equal Civil Marriage was actually constitutional then.

Who's side are you on?

Can you stay focused for more than 2 seconds? You said some were being discriminated against. When it's pointed out to you that's false since no one is being discriminated against, you shift to separate but equal.

Meanwhile, there remains no discrimination in your silly example. Everyone has access to those same locker rooms regardless of their race, religion, gender, or sexual preference.

And again, compare that to SSM, where until recently, gays were denied access to their right to marry the person they love.

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

There is no such service as "escorting a spouse" into a locker room. Again, that is not the purpose of a locker room. The accommodations of a locker room are still made to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference.

No one is being discriminated against.

Just pointing out that despite same gender marriage being legal in Massachusetts for 11 years, and in dozens of other states for various amounts of time- literally none of what Pop has predicted has happened.

He has a perfect record- of failure.

 

[Faun]

And they are not being discriminated against. They have the same access to lock rooms.

So having access to a separate but equal Civil Marriage was actually constitutional then.

Who's side are you on?

Can you stay focused for more than 2 seconds? You said some were being discriminated against. When it's pointed out to you that's false since no one is being discriminated against, you shift to separate but equal.

Meanwhile, there remains no discrimination in your silly example. Everyone has access to those same locker rooms regardless of their race, religion, gender, or sexual preference.

And again, compare that to SSM, where until recently, gays were denied access to their right to marry the person they love.

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

There is no such service as "escorting a spouse" into a locker room. Again, that is not the purpose of a locker room. The accommodations of a locker room are still made to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference.

No one is being discriminated against.

Just pointing out that despite same gender marriage being legal in Massachusetts for 11 years, and in dozens of other states for various amounts of time- literally none of what Pop has predicted has happened.

He has a perfect record- of failure.

Of course he does ... just like he has a perfect record of failing in his attempt to show discrimination in a locker room; where no such discrimination exists.

 

[Syriusly]

So having access to a separate but equal Civil Marriage was actually constitutional then.

Who's side are you on?

Can you stay focused for more than 2 seconds? You said some were being discriminated against. When it's pointed out to you that's false since no one is being discriminated against, you shift to separate but equal.

Meanwhile, there remains no discrimination in your silly example. Everyone has access to those same locker rooms regardless of their race, religion, gender, or sexual preference.

And again, compare that to SSM, where until recently, gays were denied access to their right to marry the person they love.

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

There is no such service as "escorting a spouse" into a locker room. Again, that is not the purpose of a locker room. The accommodations of a locker room are still made to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference.

No one is being discriminated against.

Just pointing out that despite same gender marriage being legal in Massachusetts for 11 years, and in dozens of other states for various amounts of time- literally none of what Pop has predicted has happened.

He has a perfect record- of failure.

Of course he does ... just like he has a perfect record of failing in his attempt to show discrimination in a locker room; where no such discrimination exists.

Well you know what his first prediction of what it meant when the Supreme Court said Americans have a right to marry regardless of their spouses gender?

 

[Seawytch]

No, it said they were equal. If the sign says Married People Only, and they are, they can both go in.

So it's ok to discriminate against groups, just not individuals.

So the sign SeaWytch posted saying "no queers allowed" is not discrimination?

Then, of course there's this link.....Woman Is Suing Planet Fitness Over Locker Room Policy The Daily Caller

Hmmmmmm

There is legal discrimination, bathrooms, and illegal discrimination, marriage licenses. Is this news to you? A lot of us got over this after taking baths with our sisters. Seems to be a problem for you still?

Ahhhhh, the marriage license issue was when your hero Justice Kennedy declared we were like situated.

See how easy that was, like playing dominoes.

So, you go ahead and bathe with your sister if you like, us adults will deal with the USSC's societal ramifications.

If this is your version of "dealing with it", I would hate to see what it's like when you don't. How about just dealing with equal bathrooms and equal standing before the law, instead of worrying about who might get aroused seeing others of their same sex standing around in their undies?

Lesbians get aroused looking at women (ask SeaWytch)

Men get aroused looking at women (ask me)

Making us similar situated.

Except there is no titillation for women that there would be for men.

If you truly feel discriminated against, you can take your case to court. Good luck.

 

[Seawytch]

In regards to marriage- they are similarily situated. In regards to gender they are not.

Since locker rooms are segregated by gender for everyone, and not by marital status- your question is irrelevant.

Appears you are wrong again:

Woman Is Suing Planet Fitness Over Locker Room Policy The Daily Caller

That doesn't help you at all since that is a genital issue, not a spousal issue. That invalidates your point completely.

Ummm, dudes a male, in a woman's locker room.

She is transgender, but not completely yet obviously, and that doesn't help you at all because the woman is upset not about a spouse in her locker room, but a penis, which we can legally discriminate based upon.

She? Where's she stick the tampon?

All women need to use tampons? I haven't needed one since I had an endometrial abrasion. Still a woman.

 

[Syriusly]

Appears you are wrong again:

Woman Is Suing Planet Fitness Over Locker Room Policy The Daily Caller

That doesn't help you at all since that is a genital issue, not a spousal issue. That invalidates your point completely.

Ummm, dudes a male, in a woman's locker room.

She is transgender, but not completely yet obviously, and that doesn't help you at all because the woman is upset not about a spouse in her locker room, but a penis, which we can legally discriminate based upon.

She? Where's she stick the tampon?

All women need to use tampons? I haven't needed one since I had an endometrial abrasion. Still a woman.

Or are you??????????bwaaaaahhaaaaaaaaa

 

[AugmentedDog]

Dig this, my fine gay hating friends who insist we "fags" upset your fine, morally upstanding lives while contributing nothing but misery to your perfect lives:
I just received my latest revised property tax bill. I am now expected to pay close to 10K a year on a property valued at 189.5K. 52% of that bill is county and local school taxes.
I have no kids. Never have had, but paying for the progeny of breeders may well cost me my home and destroy my future.
So, while you are busy raising hell about denying civil rights to LGBTQ people and screaming about cake, I pay an unaffordable fortune every year to support YOUR children.
You are welcome.
Millions of us "fags" and "lezzies" are financially crippled every year supporting the children you teach to hate and kill us.
Support your own brats out of your own pockets instead of stealing from me and stop complaining about having to sell us fracking cakes.
Maybe, this puts things into realistic perspective.
I doubt it will, unfortunately.
Peace and Blessings!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Dig this, my fine gay hating friends who insist we "fags" upset your fine, morally upstanding lives while contributing nothing but misery to your perfect lives:
I just received my latest revised property tax bill. I am now expected to pay close to 10K a year on a property valued at 189.5K. 52% of that bill is county and local school taxes.
I have no kids. Never have had, but paying for the progeny of breeders may well cost me my home and destroy my future.
So, while you are busy raising hell about denying civil rights to LGBTQ people and screaming about cake, I pay an unaffordable fortune every year to support YOUR children.
You are welcome.

Well, first of all thank you.

But you have it wrong, you aren't educating the children of other people - you are paying the cost of living in an educated society.

So I'd support the following deal, you go your own way and don't pay the taxes that it costs to live in an educated society, as such:

no getting your car serviced and or repaired buy a person educated in a public school.

no driving on roads designed, built and maintained by those educated in a public school.

no medical care by a Doctor who was educated in a public school.

no going to a a grocery store and buying food operated by or providing food raised a farmer or rancher that was educated in a public school.

no newspapers, magazines, radio, television or internet provided by people educated in a public school.

if you are injured in an accident, no response by a Paramedic that responds was educated in a public school.

if you are wrongly accused of a crime no lawyers educated in a public school.

no use of a Dentist or the hygienist that was educated in a public school.

no use of electricity from a public grid if that energy is created and distributed by those who were educated in a public school.

no use of a lawn mower built by people educated in a public school.

no use of restaurants if the cooks, servers or goods are provided by those who were educated in public schools.

when your hair gets a little shaggy, no use of abarber to get it cut and they were educated in a public school.

in the sweltering heat of summer and the HVAC Technician who comes to your house was educated in a public school - no service for you. (Assuming of course you can find an HVAC system that was manufactured by those who didn't attend public schools and techicians that could install it under the same premise).

Of course no purchasing a house when the contractor/carpenter/roofer/electrician etc… were educated in public schools.

you freedomes are not considered protected by sailors/soldiers/marines who was educated in a public school.

you can only use transportation like trains and flying when those services are provided in total buy those other then people educated in public schools.

after you build your own home and created your own materials (since you can't buy supplies if they were created by those with a public school education), don't call the fire department if it catches on fire if those firemen were educated in pubic schools.

Pay for private security since you won't have access to police protection if the cops were educated in public schools.

after you build your own home and created your own materials (since you can't buy supplies if they were created by those with a public school education), don't call the plumber educated in pubic schools if your pipes clog or burst.

etc...

.........etc...​

*******************************

People with no children gain the benefits of public education every day.

Peace and blessings to you.

Good luck living a meaningful and comfortable life without the benefits of a an educated society.

>>>>

 

[AugmentedDog]

Dig this, my fine gay hating friends who insist we "fags" upset your fine, morally upstanding lives while contributing nothing but misery to your perfect lives:
I just received my latest revised property tax bill. I am now expected to pay close to 10K a year on a property valued at 189.5K. 52% of that bill is county and local school taxes.
I have no kids. Never have had, but paying for the progeny of breeders may well cost me my home and destroy my future.
So, while you are busy raising hell about denying civil rights to LGBTQ people and screaming about cake, I pay an unaffordable fortune every year to support YOUR children.
You are welcome.

Well, first of all thank you.

But you have it wrong, you aren't educating the children of other people - you are paying the cost of living in an educated society.

So I'd support the following deal, you go your own way and don't pay the taxes that it costs to live in an educated society, as such:

no getting your car serviced and or repaired buy a person educated in a public school.

no driving on roads designed, built and maintained by those educated in a public school.

no medical care by a Doctor who was educated in a public school.

no going to a a grocery store and buying food operated by or providing food raised a farmer or rancher that was educated in a public school.

no newspapers, magazines, radio, television or internet provided by people educated in a public school.

if you are injured in an accident, no response by a Paramedic that responds was educated in a public school.

if you are wrongly accused of a crime no lawyers educated in a public school.

no use of a Dentist or the hygienist that was educated in a public school.

no use of electricity from a public grid if that energy is created and distributed by those who were educated in a public school.

no use of a lawn mower built by people educated in a public school.

no use of restaurants if the cooks, servers or goods are provided by those who were educated in public schools.

when your hair gets a little shaggy, no use of abarber to get it cut and they were educated in a public school.

in the sweltering heat of summer and the HVAC Technician who comes to your house was educated in a public school - no service for you. (Assuming of course you can find an HVAC system that was manufactured by those who didn't attend public schools and techicians that could install it under the same premise).

Of course no purchasing a house when the contractor/carpenter/roofer/electrician etc… were educated in public schools.

you freedomes are not considered protected by sailors/soldiers/marines who was educated in a public school.

you can only use transportation like trains and flying when those services are provided in total buy those other then people educated in public schools.

after you build your own home and created your own materials (since you can't buy supplies if they were created by those with a public school education), don't call the fire department if it catches on fire if those firemen were educated in pubic schools.

Pay for private security since you won't have access to police protection if the cops were educated in public schools.

after you build your own home and created your own materials (since you can't buy supplies if they were created by those with a public school education), don't call the plumber educated in pubic schools if your pipes clog or burst.

etc...

.........etc...​

*******************************

People with no children gain the benefits of public education every day.

Peace and blessings to you.

Good luck living a meaningful and comfortable life without the benefits of a an educated society.

>>>>

I, until very recently, felt exactly as you as recited the same litany to others.
Even having been physically beaten, having many of my teeth punched out of my face, my nose shattered, face fractured and severely concussed by a child taught by the likes of those posting their intolerance here, I still preached the gospel of "Our children are our future and the future of our nation and the sacrifice of cost is our collective responsibility."
Tired of being physically and emotionally assaulted.
Voluntarily spent 20 years of my life at subsistence wages fighting for the benefit and future of those children and their parents and towards the hope of true equality for all.
Guess what?