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

[OKTexas]

Does the GLOATING ever stop with these people? having a Government FINE SOMEONE for not BAKING a cake and these people see nothing wrong with this.

that's fascism and Oppression of our Freedoms all over a gawddamn CAKE

JUST call us the USSR

We are a nation of laws. You can work to change the law, but you can't break it.

Maybe you should tell the dear leader that, he breaks laws every day.

 

[Syriusly]

Already answered that one. No need to repeat it.

Oh, and an individual is still not a couple. Have you figured that out yet?

Doesn't the straight couple deserve the same accomodations as the gay couple?

After all, this is about love and the want for couples to be together.

Ahhhhh, now don't that just break your poor wittle heart?

Deserve what? Other than marriage and contracts, laws don't generally apply to couples.

Except when they claim they are all similarily situated.

You go on and create rainbow Jim crow laws just like those opposed to black rights.

Have you yet to come up with that remarkable difference between a lesbian and a Married Male yet?

Funny you can't, it seems obvious.

Stop talking Pops and file your lawsuit. You've got a good case. Women's restrooms are much nicer than mens. Doors on the stalls, soap in the dispensers. It's separate but equal, Pops. Fight, fight, fight!

Oh, I don't want men in women's locker rooms, showers or bathrooms. I'm looking for the legal reasoning that it can't happen. So far I've found nothing.

You?

All I've seen is people trying to tell me that:

1. In one case a Married Lesbian is the same (similarily situated) as a Married Male.

Then, they argue that.......

2 in the other case that there is such a remarkable difference that the Male could be arrested, spend time in jail and possibly spent many years on a sex offenders list.

Remarkable isn't it?

You not understanding the problems with your own straw man does not make it our problem.

11 years- and none of your predictions have come to pass.

 

[Pop23]

Oh, I don't want men in women's locker rooms, showers or bathrooms. I'm looking for the legal reasoning that it can't happen. So far I've found nothing.

You?

All I've seen is people trying to tell me that:

1. In one case a Married Lesbian is the same (similarily situated) as a Married Male.

Then, they argue that.......

2 in the other case that there is such a remarkable difference that the Male could be arrested, spend time in jail and possibly spent many years on a sex offenders list.

Remarkable isn't it?

Do both men and women have access to the gym and it's accommodations?

Yes, just like Jim Crow laws allowed access to all busses, they were simply required to sit in the back.

Funny, the rainbiw flag appears to be today's confederate flag.

Rally around the bigot flag ChrisL.

No, sorry, bathrooms and locker rooms are different from buses. There is a privacy factor.

To assist the mentally challaged^^^

So you would agree that white only bathrooms were also appropriate. That's how you Jim Crow types justify Separate but Equal Laws, Right?

Nope. Color is not relevant to which bathroom you use. That is determined by gender. Both men and women have equal access to a gym and it's facilities. Therefore, you are wrong. Not to mention, you are making a fool out of yourself.

Oh, I see, similar situated NOW has a different meaning than what the law says.

Because why?

Before Blacks obtained full equal rights, the backers of Jim Crow Laws made the same types of claims you just did. "Yes, they are equal, but since we allow them a seperate bathroom, they are equal".

You bigots will stretch things. But they will not work.

There must be a remarkable difference between two before you can segregate.

There was at one time, not anymore.

 

[Syriusly]

Are you dizzy yet from all that spin. An honest author doesn't use "we" when they are not included, it would be "they", maybe you should go back to your remedial ESL class teacher and have them explain it to ya.

As I said- it was clumsy- but there is not an identifiable falsehood in the entire document- and certainly nothing that is an attempt to deceive.

You just want something to whine about.

Besides, it wasn't the formal complaint. That was filed by the individual present.

Does OK really think he found some legal loophole nobody else found?

You keep beating that same old dead horse even though it's been established the two documents are separate. That's just pure stupidity.

Except it's you beating a dead horse. The only document that matters is the official complaint...which was filed by the individual present at the time the discrimination took place.

Ok, agreed. Now explain how a single complainant becomes multiple awards.

Read the documents- not our problem that this is your obsession.

Business failed to follow the law- business got penalized according to the law.

 

[Faun]

Are you dizzy yet from all that spin. An honest author doesn't use "we" when they are not included, it would be "they", maybe you should go back to your remedial ESL class teacher and have them explain it to ya.

As I said- it was clumsy- but there is not an identifiable falsehood in the entire document- and certainly nothing that is an attempt to deceive.

You just want something to whine about.

Besides, it wasn't the formal complaint. That was filed by the individual present.

Does OK really think he found some legal loophole nobody else found?

You keep beating that same old dead horse even though it's been established the two documents are separate. That's just pure stupidity.

Except it's you beating a dead horse. The only document that matters is the official complaint...which was filed by the individual present at the time the discrimination took place.

Ok, agreed. Now explain how a single complainant becomes multiple awards.

The complaint was that two people were discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Two people -- two awards.

 

[OKTexas]

As I said- it was clumsy- but there is not an identifiable falsehood in the entire document- and certainly nothing that is an attempt to deceive.

You just want something to whine about.

Besides, it wasn't the formal complaint. That was filed by the individual present.

Does OK really think he found some legal loophole nobody else found?

You keep beating that same old dead horse even though it's been established the two documents are separate. That's just pure stupidity.

Except it's you beating a dead horse. The only document that matters is the official complaint...which was filed by the individual present at the time the discrimination took place.

Ok, agreed. Now explain how a single complainant becomes multiple awards.

Read the documents- not our problem that this is your obsession.

Business failed to follow the law- business got penalized according to the law.

Right, the documents somebody posted excerpts from with no link, the excerpts didn't answer my question.

 

[bodecea]

Does the GLOATING ever stop with these people? having a Government FINE SOMEONE for not BAKING a cake and these people see nothing wrong with this.

that's fascism and Oppression of our Freedoms all over a gawddamn CAKE

JUST call us the USSR

We are a nation of laws. You can work to change the law, but you can't break it.

Maybe you should tell the dear leader that, he breaks laws every day.

"the dear leader"?

 

[OKTexas]

As I said- it was clumsy- but there is not an identifiable falsehood in the entire document- and certainly nothing that is an attempt to deceive.

You just want something to whine about.

Besides, it wasn't the formal complaint. That was filed by the individual present.

Does OK really think he found some legal loophole nobody else found?

You keep beating that same old dead horse even though it's been established the two documents are separate. That's just pure stupidity.

Except it's you beating a dead horse. The only document that matters is the official complaint...which was filed by the individual present at the time the discrimination took place.

Ok, agreed. Now explain how a single complainant becomes multiple awards.

The complaint was that two people were discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Two people -- two awards.

Did you read the complaint? the only complainant listed was Cryer, all the terms she used in the complaint were singular, as in "I", "me" and "my", not a single "we" in sight.

 

[OKTexas]

Does the GLOATING ever stop with these people? having a Government FINE SOMEONE for not BAKING a cake and these people see nothing wrong with this.

that's fascism and Oppression of our Freedoms all over a gawddamn CAKE

JUST call us the USSR

We are a nation of laws. You can work to change the law, but you can't break it.

Maybe you should tell the dear leader that, he breaks laws every day.

"the dear leader"?

Yep, it damn sure isn't a president, they swear to "insure the Laws are faithfully executed" not break them at every opportunity.

 

[Faun]

Besides, it wasn't the formal complaint. That was filed by the individual present.

Does OK really think he found some legal loophole nobody else found?

You keep beating that same old dead horse even though it's been established the two documents are separate. That's just pure stupidity.

Except it's you beating a dead horse. The only document that matters is the official complaint...which was filed by the individual present at the time the discrimination took place.

Ok, agreed. Now explain how a single complainant becomes multiple awards.

The complaint was that two people were discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Two people -- two awards.

Did you read the complaint? the only complainant listed was Cryer, all the terms she used in the complaint were singular, as in "I", "me" and "my", not a single "we" in sight.

She went to buy a cake for her wedding. Not baking such a cake discriminated not only against her, but her fiance as well.

 

[OKTexas]

You keep beating that same old dead horse even though it's been established the two documents are separate. That's just pure stupidity.

Except it's you beating a dead horse. The only document that matters is the official complaint...which was filed by the individual present at the time the discrimination took place.

Ok, agreed. Now explain how a single complainant becomes multiple awards.

The complaint was that two people were discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Two people -- two awards.

Did you read the complaint? the only complainant listed was Cryer, all the terms she used in the complaint were singular, as in "I", "me" and "my", not a single "we" in sight.

She went to buy a cake for her wedding. Not baking such a cake discriminated not only against her, but her fiance as well.

So why didn't they give an award to every other gay person in the state that were considering buying a cake, they were just as involved weren't included as complainant just like Bowman? Hell it would have made more sense to give the mother cash, at least she was there, didn't she suffer emotional distress?

 

[Pop23]

Oh, I don't want men in women's locker rooms, showers or bathrooms. I'm looking for the legal reasoning that it can't happen. So far I've found nothing.

You?

All I've seen is people trying to tell me that:

1. In one case a Married Lesbian is the same (similarily situated) as a Married Male.

Then, they argue that.......

2 in the other case that there is such a remarkable difference that the Male could be arrested, spend time in jail and possibly spent many years on a sex offenders list.

Remarkable isn't it?

Do both men and women have access to the gym and it's accommodations?

Yes, just like Jim Crow laws allowed access to all busses, they were simply required to sit in the back.

Funny, the rainbiw flag appears to be today's confederate flag.

Rally around the bigot flag ChrisL.

No, sorry, bathrooms and locker rooms are different from buses. There is a privacy factor.

To assist the mentally challaged^^^

So you would agree that white only bathrooms were also appropriate. That's how you Jim Crow types justify Separate but Equal Laws, Right?

Too retarded. What compelling reason was there in separating blacks from whites from using the same bathroom?

More Jim Crow thought

The races were given similar situated status, so restrooms were integrated

Can you name another situation were one group was granted rights, but not all rights afforded the other?

I can't.

 

[Pop23]

Except when they claim they are all similarily situated.

You go on and create rainbow Jim crow laws just like those opposed to black rights.

Have you yet to come up with that remarkable difference between a lesbian and a Married Male yet?

Funny you can't, it seems obvious.

Stop talking Pops and file your lawsuit. You've got a good case. Women's restrooms are much nicer than mens. Doors on the stalls, soap in the dispensers. It's separate but equal, Pops. Fight, fight, fight!

Oh, I don't want men in women's locker rooms, showers or bathrooms. I'm looking for the legal reasoning that it can't happen. So far I've found nothing.

You?

All I've seen is people trying to tell me that:

1. In one case a Married Lesbian is the same (similarily situated) as a Married Male.

Then, they argue that.......

2 in the other case that there is such a remarkable difference that the Male could be arrested, spend time in jail and possibly spent many years on a sex offenders list.

Remarkable isn't it?

In case 1, a lesbian is also similarly situated as a straight female. That's the part you can't understand.

...... and the married male. So Sayeth the Supreme Court.

There I fixed it for you.

... and the married female.

Are you catching on yet?

The married female was always similarily situated.

You do understand the debate, right?

It appears you don't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Besides, it wasn't the formal complaint. That was filed by the individual present.

Does OK really think he found some legal loophole nobody else found?

You keep beating that same old dead horse even though it's been established the two documents are separate. That's just pure stupidity.

Except it's you beating a dead horse. The only document that matters is the official complaint...which was filed by the individual present at the time the discrimination took place.

Ok, agreed. Now explain how a single complainant becomes multiple awards.

Read the documents- not our problem that this is your obsession.

Business failed to follow the law- business got penalized according to the law.

Right, the documents somebody posted excerpts from with no link, the excerpts didn't answer my question.

I posted the full document back many pages ago. If you would bother to read this your answers, including why both were awarded money, are in here: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

 

[Statistikhengst]

So close to 3,000 postings.... 3,000 postings...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Except it's you beating a dead horse. The only document that matters is the official complaint...which was filed by the individual present at the time the discrimination took place.

Ok, agreed. Now explain how a single complainant becomes multiple awards.

The complaint was that two people were discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Two people -- two awards.

Did you read the complaint? the only complainant listed was Cryer, all the terms she used in the complaint were singular, as in "I", "me" and "my", not a single "we" in sight.

She went to buy a cake for her wedding. Not baking such a cake discriminated not only against her, but her fiance as well.

So why didn't they give an award to every other gay person in the state that were considering buying a cake, they were just as involved weren't included as complainant just like Bowman? Hell it would have made more sense to give the mother cash, at least she was there, didn't she suffer emotional distress?

Read the case. A wedding cake is for celebrating two people. Two people, two awards.

 

[Pop23]

Doesn't the straight couple deserve the same accomodations as the gay couple?

After all, this is about love and the want for couples to be together.

Ahhhhh, now don't that just break your poor wittle heart?

Deserve what? Other than marriage and contracts, laws don't generally apply to couples.

Except when they claim they are all similarily situated.

You go on and create rainbow Jim crow laws just like those opposed to black rights.

Have you yet to come up with that remarkable difference between a lesbian and a Married Male yet?

Funny you can't, it seems obvious.

Stop talking Pops and file your lawsuit. You've got a good case. Women's restrooms are much nicer than mens. Doors on the stalls, soap in the dispensers. It's separate but equal, Pops. Fight, fight, fight!

Oh, I don't want men in women's locker rooms, showers or bathrooms. I'm looking for the legal reasoning that it can't happen. So far I've found nothing.

You?

All I've seen is people trying to tell me that:

1. In one case a Married Lesbian is the same (similarily situated) as a Married Male.

Then, they argue that.......

2 in the other case that there is such a remarkable difference that the Male could be arrested, spend time in jail and possibly spent many years on a sex offenders list.

Remarkable isn't it?

You not understanding the problems with your own straw man does not make it our problem.

11 years- and none of your predictions have come to pass.

View attachment 45510

You do understand there are a number of both public and private facilities that have started already, right?

And it started because of the LBGTQ fight for rights.

Damn, there goes your "it will never happen" tirade.

Are you feeling all weepy now?

 

[Pop23]

Do both men and women have access to the gym and it's accommodations?

Yes, just like Jim Crow laws allowed access to all busses, they were simply required to sit in the back.

Funny, the rainbiw flag appears to be today's confederate flag.

Rally around the bigot flag ChrisL.

No, sorry, bathrooms and locker rooms are different from buses. There is a privacy factor.

To assist the mentally challaged^^^

So you would agree that white only bathrooms were also appropriate. That's how you Jim Crow types justify Separate but Equal Laws, Right?

Too retarded. What compelling reason was there in separating blacks from whites from using the same bathroom?

We might as well be doing this . . . Lol.

Knocking on the men's room door Chris?

 

[Seawytch]

Except it's you beating a dead horse. The only document that matters is the official complaint...which was filed by the individual present at the time the discrimination took place.

Ok, agreed. Now explain how a single complainant becomes multiple awards.

The complaint was that two people were discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Two people -- two awards.

Did you read the complaint? the only complainant listed was Cryer, all the terms she used in the complaint were singular, as in "I", "me" and "my", not a single "we" in sight.

She went to buy a cake for her wedding. Not baking such a cake discriminated not only against her, but her fiance as well.

So why didn't they give an award to every other gay person in the state that were considering buying a cake, they were just as involved weren't included as complainant just like Bowman? Hell it would have made more sense to give the mother cash, at least she was there, didn't she suffer emotional distress?

The same baker already provided a service to the divorced and remarried (huge SIN Jesus himself mentioned) mother of one of the brides. Despite her "sinful" lifestyle, Sweet Cakes baked her a wedding cake. She wasn't discriminated against...just the TWO BRIDES were.

 

[Syriusly]

Deserve what? Other than marriage and contracts, laws don't generally apply to couples.

Except when they claim they are all similarily situated.

You go on and create rainbow Jim crow laws just like those opposed to black rights.

Have you yet to come up with that remarkable difference between a lesbian and a Married Male yet?

Funny you can't, it seems obvious.

Stop talking Pops and file your lawsuit. You've got a good case. Women's restrooms are much nicer than mens. Doors on the stalls, soap in the dispensers. It's separate but equal, Pops. Fight, fight, fight!

Oh, I don't want men in women's locker rooms, showers or bathrooms. I'm looking for the legal reasoning that it can't happen. So far I've found nothing.

You?

All I've seen is people trying to tell me that:

1. In one case a Married Lesbian is the same (similarily situated) as a Married Male.

Then, they argue that.......

2 in the other case that there is such a remarkable difference that the Male could be arrested, spend time in jail and possibly spent many years on a sex offenders list.

Remarkable isn't it?

You not understanding the problems with your own straw man does not make it our problem.

11 years- and none of your predictions have come to pass.

View attachment 45510

You do understand there are a number of both public and private facilities that have started already, right?

And it started because of the LBGTQ fight for rights.

Damn, there goes your "it will never happen" tirade.

Are you feeling all weepy now?

I have no idea what you think you are saying.

You not understanding the problems with your own straw man does not make it our problem.

11 years- and none of your predictions have come to pass.