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

[ChrisL]

All of these cons, twisting and turning and grasping for SOMETHING that would hold water for them to deny other Americans the same privileges and rights that they enjoy is actually quite humorous. They are going to be sore from pulling so many muscles! Lol. I mean really, this is just getting stupid.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I guess your lack of knowledge of the bible, you wouldn't know that there is a recognition of the dissolution a marriage, so it's not necessarily a sin. But that isn't really relevant to the case.

What is relevant is Bowman's statement on the DOJ Consumer Complaint Form, which you claimed was just a letter, it was not. She lied her ass off on that form and it became part of the record.

I also don't understand why such a big deal was made about the form being released in public forums as the disclaimer on the form itself says it may be released to members of the public. Were the faghadist so stupid they didn't know when you start a war people are going to find out about it?

My bold

"This complaint will become part of our permanent records. Consumer complaints may be released to the business or person about whom you are complaining, members of the public or other agencies. This form is also subject to Oregon's Public Records Law."

Online Complaint Form

It's not a sin, huh? That's funny. Right, it's not a sin if you remain alone and abstinent for the rest of your days, correct?

There are conflicts depending which verse you read, you can find verses that pretty much allow any thing, others not so much.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

I guess your lack of knowledge of the bible, you wouldn't know that there is a recognition of the dissolution a marriage, so it's not necessarily a sin. But that isn't really relevant to the case.

What is relevant is Bowman's statement on the DOJ Consumer Complaint Form, which you claimed was just a letter, it was not. She lied her ass off on that form and it became part of the record.

I also don't understand why such a big deal was made about the form being released in public forums as the disclaimer on the form itself says it may be released to members of the public. Were the faghadist so stupid they didn't know when you start a war people are going to find out about it?

My bold

"This complaint will become part of our permanent records. Consumer complaints may be released to the business or person about whom you are complaining, members of the public or other agencies. This form is also subject to Oregon's Public Records Law."

Online Complaint Form

It's not a sin, huh? That's funny. Right, it's not a sin if you remain alone and abstinent for the rest of your days, correct?

There are conflicts depending which verse you read, you can find verses that pretty much allow any thing, others not so much.

Oh yeah, it depends on if you want to follow that rule or not.

 

[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?

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.

Dude, it's already happening.
Emerson University follows disturbing trend by making restrooms gender-neutral to accommodate transgender students CBMW The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

I'll supply more links if you like?

And even college housing?U. of Missouri to implement gender-neutral housing restrooms USA TODAY College

Nope, that'll never happen!

That goes back to 2007 and has nothing to do with gay marriage. WTF is wrong with you?

Gay marriage went back prior to 2007 dimwit.

And the question is about similar situated individual being denied access.

Jim Crow be your friend?

 

[Pop23]

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.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question .... What compelling reason was there in separating blacks from whites from using the same bathroom?

Oh, he doesn't know what the hell is going on anymore. He just has a serious problem with gay people, obviously. It makes one wonder, it really does. SMH.

^^^ Says today's new bigot

 

[Pop23]

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.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question .... What compelling reason was there in separating blacks from whites from using the same bathroom?

Oh, he doesn't know what the hell is going on anymore. He just has a serious problem with gay people, obviously. It makes one wonder, it really does. SMH.

None, why do you insist there is one now?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question .... What compelling reason was there in separating blacks from whites from using the same bathroom?

Oh, he doesn't know what the hell is going on anymore. He just has a serious problem with gay people, obviously. It makes one wonder, it really does. SMH.

^^^ Says today's new bigot

Pop continued melt down over Americans being allowed to get married.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question .... What compelling reason was there in separating blacks from whites from using the same bathroom?

Oh, he doesn't know what the hell is going on anymore. He just has a serious problem with gay people, obviously. It makes one wonder, it really does. SMH.

^^^ Says today's new bigot

Pop continued melt down over Americans being allowed to get married.

I think it has gone beyond a melt down at this point, and is now a complete break down.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I guess your lack of knowledge of the bible, you wouldn't know that there is a recognition of the dissolution a marriage, so it's not necessarily a sin. But that isn't really relevant to the case.

Nice try, but Sweet Cake's religious hypocrisy is well established.

Bakery Will Do Pagan Cloning and Divorce Cakes But Not Gay Weddings Advocate.com

What is relevant is Bowman's statement on the DOJ Consumer Complaint Form, which you claimed was just a letter, it was not. She lied her ass off on that form and it became part of the record.

Nobody lied. The official complaint was filed by the individual that was present at the time. The letter penned by Laurel Bowman-Cryer.

I also don't understand why such a big deal was made about the form being released in public forums as the disclaimer on the form itself says it may be released to members of the public. Were the faghadist so stupid they didn't know when you start a war people are going to find out about it?

My bold

"This complaint will become part of our permanent records. Consumer complaints may be released to the business or person about whom you are complaining, members of the public or other agencies. This form is also subject to Oregon's Public Records Law."

Online Complaint Form

Documents released to the public are redacted. The bigots didn't redact it.

You just can't let go of the "letter" lie, can you? It was part of a formal on line complaint filed with the Oregon DOJ Consumer Protection division. Also there is nothing about information on that form being kept private.

No it wasn't. The formal complaint came from Rachel, not Lauel. Laurel wrote a letter to the Oregon DOJ, Rachel (who was present) filed the complaint.

You're not exposing anything Sherlock-wanna-be.

A document released to someone outside the parties involved is redacted. If the document had been released to a private individual under a public records request, it would have been redacted. The bigots didn't redact.

According to the final decision, Bowman filed a formal complaint with the BOLI in Nov 2013 almost 3 months after Cryer's Aug 2013 filing. So far I cant't find a copy of it.

You already linked to the formal complaint filed by Rachel in August 2013. This is the FORMAL COMPLAINT:

BOLI Complaint

 

[Pop23]

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.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question .... What compelling reason was there in separating blacks from whites from using the same bathroom?

Oh, he doesn't know what the hell is going on anymore. He just has a serious problem with gay people, obviously. It makes one wonder, it really does. SMH.

^^^ Says today's new bigot

Pop continued melt down over Americans being allowed to get married.

Similarly situated Americans?

Yes or no

Sounds like you're having a tough time defending gay privilege.

 

[Pop23]

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.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question .... What compelling reason was there in separating blacks from whites from using the same bathroom?

Oh, he doesn't know what the hell is going on anymore. He just has a serious problem with gay people, obviously. It makes one wonder, it really does. SMH.

^^^ Says today's new bigot

Pop continued melt down over Americans being allowed to get married.

I think it has gone beyond a melt down at this point, and is now a complete break down.

Just seeking equality for similarly situated citizens.

Why do you continue justifying the bigoted rainbow Jim crow laws that would put one similarily situated individual in jail, while the other would be free?

Sounds like you are simply today's newest bigot.

Justice for all!

Straight lives matter!

 

[Pop23]

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.

If the lesbian couple is similarily similar to an opposite sex couple, thus the discrimination, how can the state defend their position that a similar situated married straight couple is denied equal access to all facilities a lesbian couple.

Gay privilege perhaps?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

 

[OKTexas]

I guess your lack of knowledge of the bible, you wouldn't know that there is a recognition of the dissolution a marriage, so it's not necessarily a sin. But that isn't really relevant to the case.

Nice try, but Sweet Cake's religious hypocrisy is well established.

Bakery Will Do Pagan Cloning and Divorce Cakes But Not Gay Weddings Advocate.com

What is relevant is Bowman's statement on the DOJ Consumer Complaint Form, which you claimed was just a letter, it was not. She lied her ass off on that form and it became part of the record.

Nobody lied. The official complaint was filed by the individual that was present at the time. The letter penned by Laurel Bowman-Cryer.

I also don't understand why such a big deal was made about the form being released in public forums as the disclaimer on the form itself says it may be released to members of the public. Were the faghadist so stupid they didn't know when you start a war people are going to find out about it?

My bold

"This complaint will become part of our permanent records. Consumer complaints may be released to the business or person about whom you are complaining, members of the public or other agencies. This form is also subject to Oregon's Public Records Law."

Online Complaint Form

Documents released to the public are redacted. The bigots didn't redact it.

You just can't let go of the "letter" lie, can you? It was part of a formal on line complaint filed with the Oregon DOJ Consumer Protection division. Also there is nothing about information on that form being kept private.

No it wasn't. The formal complaint came from Rachel, not Lauel. Laurel wrote a letter to the Oregon DOJ, Rachel (who was present) filed the complaint.

You're not exposing anything Sherlock-wanna-be.

A document released to someone outside the parties involved is redacted. If the document had been released to a private individual under a public records request, it would have been redacted. The bigots didn't redact.

According to the final decision, Bowman filed a formal complaint with the BOLI in Nov 2013 almost 3 months after Cryer's Aug 2013 filing. So far I cant't find a copy of it.

You already linked to the formal complaint filed by Rachel in August 2013. This is the FORMAL COMPLAINT:

BOLI Complaint

Read the final decision, page 44, paragraph 2. Where is that complaint?

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

 

[WorldWatcher]

Read the final decision, page 44, paragraph 2. Where is that complaint?

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

On file with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, Civil Rights Division.

The copy of Rachel's complaint has been linked to through 3rd party sites, I'm sure you can call them (971-673-0764) or email (crdemail@boli.state.or.us) them to find out how to obtain a copy.


Glad to help.

>>>>

 

[Faun]

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.

I guess your lack of knowledge of the bible, you wouldn't know that there is a recognition of the dissolution a marriage, so it's not necessarily a sin. But that isn't really relevant to the case.

What is relevant is Bowman's statement on the DOJ Consumer Complaint Form, which you claimed was just a letter, it was not. She lied her ass off on that form and it became part of the record.

I also don't understand why such a big deal was made about the form being released in public forums as the disclaimer on the form itself says it may be released to members of the public. Were the faghadist so stupid they didn't know when you start a war people are going to find out about it?

My bold

"This complaint will become part of our permanent records. Consumer complaints may be released to the business or person about whom you are complaining, members of the public or other agencies. This form is also subject to Oregon's Public Records Law."

Online Complaint Form

She was not aware of the disclaimer.

Sounds like a personal problem. It was there.

Nope. It wasn't a personal problem. It wasn't available to her.

Who kept it from her, oh right, the device SHE chose to use. Also ignorance of the disclaimer does not release her from the conditions set out in it.

Of course she's not expected to be aware of a disclaimer she was never shown. Why do you think the state has since added the disclaimer to the web page presented to complaintants who access it on mobile devices?

 

[Faun]

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.

Dude, it's already happening.
Emerson University follows disturbing trend by making restrooms gender-neutral to accommodate transgender students CBMW The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

I'll supply more links if you like?

And even college housing?U. of Missouri to implement gender-neutral housing restrooms USA TODAY College

Nope, that'll never happen!

That goes back to 2007 and has nothing to do with gay marriage. WTF is wrong with you?

Gay marriage went back prior to 2007 dimwit.

And the question is about similar situated individual being denied access.

Jim Crow be your friend?

Imbecile... it has nothing to do with gay marriage. Gay marriage is legally allowed because there is no compelling interest to ban it. There is no lack of such compelling interest in bathrooms. That is why there are no laws enforcing them like there are laws governing accessibility for handicapped people. Such bathrooms are being optionally offered as amenities in some establishments.

 

[Faun]

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question .... What compelling reason was there in separating blacks from whites from using the same bathroom?

Oh, he doesn't know what the hell is going on anymore. He just has a serious problem with gay people, obviously. It makes one wonder, it really does. SMH.

^^^ Says today's new bigot

Pop continued melt down over Americans being allowed to get married.

I think it has gone beyond a melt down at this point, and is now a complete break down.

Just seeking equality for similarly situated citizens.

Why do you continue justifying the bigoted rainbow Jim crow laws that would put one similarily situated individual in jail, while the other would be free?

Sounds like you are simply today's newest bigot.

Justice for all!

Straight lives matter!

If that's what you're truly seeking, then why do you flat out refuse to answer the question .... what is the compelling interest in separating blacks from whites in bathrooms??

 

[bodecea]

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.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question .... What compelling reason was there in separating blacks from whites from using the same bathroom?

Oh, he doesn't know what the hell is going on anymore. He just has a serious problem with gay people, obviously. It makes one wonder, it really does. SMH.

^^^ Says today's new bigot

Pop continued melt down over Americans being allowed to get married.

Similarly situated Americans?

Yes or no

Sounds like you're having a tough time defending gay privilege.

"Gay privilege"...listen to you.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question .... What compelling reason was there in separating blacks from whites from using the same bathroom?

Oh, he doesn't know what the hell is going on anymore. He just has a serious problem with gay people, obviously. It makes one wonder, it really does. SMH.

^^^ Says today's new bigot

Pop continued melt down over Americans being allowed to get married.

I think it has gone beyond a melt down at this point, and is now a complete break down.

Just seeking equality for similarly situated citizens.

Why do you continue justifying the bigoted rainbow Jim crow laws that would put one similarily situated individual in jail, while the other would be free?

Sounds like you are simply today's newest bigot.

Justice for all!

Straight lives matter!

There is equality, you nutbag.