Another Christian baker targeted for abuse

[Conservative65]

I wouldn't lump people together like that, and I have no issue with people's sexuality, my concern is solely governmental overreach.

I don't think a State setting minimum standards of conduct for public business is overreach...or unreasonable.

Because you agree with the side doing the punishing, not the side being punished. It's easy to support government thuggery when you agree with it.

I don't consider PA laws to be 'government thuggery'. But well within the State's unquestioned authority over intra-state commerce.

We've done this whole dance before.

One can always question authority, and how that authority is used.

Sure. But not every application of authority is overreach, wrong, or even inappropriate. And applying minimum codes of conduct like PA laws for public business definitely fall into the category of reasonable and appropriate.

At least to me and the Oregon legislature.

That's because in this case you agree with the perverts demanding a yes answer.

 

[AceRothstein]

Ah that is the Christian way- hoping for someone's death- or even more so- suggesting that someone commit suicide.

Exactly how Jesus told you to live......

Jesus wouldn't tolerate your acceptance of perversion.

Jesus and I would be having beers together, and he would be warning everyone about hateful bigots like you that wish people would commit suicide.

Jesus would be telling you like he did the woman at the well to go and sin no more.

Tell me all about how Jesus wants you to tell people to go commit suicide.

Tell me about how Jesus would be drinking beer with you.

Jesus did turn water into a fine Cabernet. He would definitely be down for a few beers at the local pub.

 

[Skylar]

I don't think a State setting minimum standards of conduct for public business is overreach...or unreasonable.

Because you agree with the side doing the punishing, not the side being punished. It's easy to support government thuggery when you agree with it.

I don't consider PA laws to be 'government thuggery'. But well within the State's unquestioned authority over intra-state commerce.

We've done this whole dance before.

That's because you agree with those on this matter.

Should a business be forced to serve naked customers?

Are naked customers protected by PA laws?

That's not what I asked. You say homos should be served because it's a public accommodation. Should naked people be served because it's a public accommodation.

Naked people aren't a public accommodation. When and if they are, talk to me.

 

[Skylar]

I don't think a State setting minimum standards of conduct for public business is overreach...or unreasonable.

Because you agree with the side doing the punishing, not the side being punished. It's easy to support government thuggery when you agree with it.

I don't consider PA laws to be 'government thuggery'. But well within the State's unquestioned authority over intra-state commerce.

We've done this whole dance before.

One can always question authority, and how that authority is used.

Sure. But not every application of authority is overreach, wrong, or even inappropriate. And applying minimum codes of conduct like PA laws for public business definitely fall into the category of reasonable and appropriate.

At least to me and the Oregon legislature.

That's because in this case you agree with the perverts demanding a yes answer.

Or more accurately, I think Oregon's application of PA laws is quite reasonable.

 

[Conservative65]

Because you agree with the side doing the punishing, not the side being punished. It's easy to support government thuggery when you agree with it.

I don't consider PA laws to be 'government thuggery'. But well within the State's unquestioned authority over intra-state commerce.

We've done this whole dance before.

One can always question authority, and how that authority is used.

Sure. But not every application of authority is overreach, wrong, or even inappropriate. And applying minimum codes of conduct like PA laws for public business definitely fall into the category of reasonable and appropriate.

At least to me and the Oregon legislature.

That's because in this case you agree with the perverts demanding a yes answer.

Or more accurately, I think Oregon's application of PA laws is quite reasonable.

I'm sure you do because you agree with perversion. Why wouldn't you. You're one of those perverts.

 

[Conservative65]

Because you agree with the side doing the punishing, not the side being punished. It's easy to support government thuggery when you agree with it.

I don't consider PA laws to be 'government thuggery'. But well within the State's unquestioned authority over intra-state commerce.

We've done this whole dance before.

That's because you agree with those on this matter.

Should a business be forced to serve naked customers?

Are naked customers protected by PA laws?

That's not what I asked. You say homos should be served because it's a public accommodation. Should naked people be served because it's a public accommodation.

Naked people aren't a public accommodation. When and if they are, talk to me.

Naked people can go into public accommodations.

Should they be allowed to? I'm sure you say you don't care because it isn't in line with your faggot agenda.

 

[Conservative65]

Jesus wouldn't tolerate your acceptance of perversion.

Jesus and I would be having beers together, and he would be warning everyone about hateful bigots like you that wish people would commit suicide.

Jesus would be telling you like he did the woman at the well to go and sin no more.

Tell me all about how Jesus wants you to tell people to go commit suicide.

Tell me about how Jesus would be drinking beer with you.

Jesus did turn water into a fine Cabernet. He would definitely be down for a few beers at the local pub.

Typical smartass answer from another piece of shit.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Another first world problem. Christians are so whiny.

and the people suing over a cake aren't being whiny?

No, major civil rights laws start from occurrences which seem benign at the time, or are simply overlooked, such as Rosa Parks refusing to sit in the back of the bus. Or two gay men telling Kim Davis to take her stupid religious beliefs and stuff 'em when they filed for a marriage license. Get it, yet?

 

[Skylar]

I don't consider PA laws to be 'government thuggery'. But well within the State's unquestioned authority over intra-state commerce.

We've done this whole dance before.

One can always question authority, and how that authority is used.

Sure. But not every application of authority is overreach, wrong, or even inappropriate. And applying minimum codes of conduct like PA laws for public business definitely fall into the category of reasonable and appropriate.

At least to me and the Oregon legislature.

That's because in this case you agree with the perverts demanding a yes answer.

Or more accurately, I think Oregon's application of PA laws is quite reasonable.

I'm sure you do because you agree with perversion. Why wouldn't you. You're one of those perverts.

I simply don't believe that you define 'perversion'. Nor that your subjective opinion has a thing to do with the law.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I don't think a State setting minimum standards of conduct for public business is overreach...or unreasonable.

Because you agree with the side doing the punishing, not the side being punished. It's easy to support government thuggery when you agree with it.

I don't consider PA laws to be 'government thuggery'. But well within the State's unquestioned authority over intra-state commerce.

We've done this whole dance before.

That's because you agree with those on this matter.

Should a business be forced to serve naked customers?

Are naked customers protected by PA laws?

That's not what I asked. You say homos should be served because it's a public accommodation. Should naked people be served because it's a public accommodation.

I dont think that naked people are allowed in a food environment. I ran a place many years ago and wouldnt even serve someone if they didnt have a shirt on.

 

[Conservative65]

One can always question authority, and how that authority is used.

Sure. But not every application of authority is overreach, wrong, or even inappropriate. And applying minimum codes of conduct like PA laws for public business definitely fall into the category of reasonable and appropriate.

At least to me and the Oregon legislature.

That's because in this case you agree with the perverts demanding a yes answer.

Or more accurately, I think Oregon's application of PA laws is quite reasonable.

I'm sure you do because you agree with perversion. Why wouldn't you. You're one of those perverts.

I simply don't believe that you define 'perversion'. Nor that your subjective opinion has a thing to do with the law.

I'm sure a freak of nature like you wouldn't agree. Doesn't change that fags are perverted.

 

[Skylar]

I don't consider PA laws to be 'government thuggery'. But well within the State's unquestioned authority over intra-state commerce.

We've done this whole dance before.

That's because you agree with those on this matter.

Should a business be forced to serve naked customers?

Are naked customers protected by PA laws?

That's not what I asked. You say homos should be served because it's a public accommodation. Should naked people be served because it's a public accommodation.

Naked people aren't a public accommodation. When and if they are, talk to me.

Naked people can go into public accommodations.

Are naked people protected under public accommodation laws?

Its a simple question. You know the answer. I know the answer. I just want you to say it.

Should they be allowed to? I'm sure you say you don't care because it isn't in line with your faggot agenda.

On the contrary, I'd object to someone refusing to serve you because you were straight too.

At least in Oregon.

 

[Conservative65]

Because you agree with the side doing the punishing, not the side being punished. It's easy to support government thuggery when you agree with it.

I don't consider PA laws to be 'government thuggery'. But well within the State's unquestioned authority over intra-state commerce.

We've done this whole dance before.

That's because you agree with those on this matter.

Should a business be forced to serve naked customers?

Are naked customers protected by PA laws?

That's not what I asked. You say homos should be served because it's a public accommodation. Should naked people be served because it's a public accommodation.

I dont think that naked people are allowed in a food environment. I ran a place many years ago and wouldnt even serve someone if they didnt have a shirt on.

That was the point. Why shouldn't public accommodations be forced to serve naked customers if that is what they choose to do? Bakers are forced to serve faggots because they are a public accommodation.

 

[Skylar]

Sure. But not every application of authority is overreach, wrong, or even inappropriate. And applying minimum codes of conduct like PA laws for public business definitely fall into the category of reasonable and appropriate.

At least to me and the Oregon legislature.

That's because in this case you agree with the perverts demanding a yes answer.

Or more accurately, I think Oregon's application of PA laws is quite reasonable.

I'm sure you do because you agree with perversion. Why wouldn't you. You're one of those perverts.

I simply don't believe that you define 'perversion'. Nor that your subjective opinion has a thing to do with the law.

I'm sure a freak of nature like you wouldn't agree. Doesn't change that fags are perverted.

Says you, citing yourself. Which is gloriously irrelevant to any legal defintion or PA laws in Oregon.

You're more than welcome to your subjective opinions. Both I and the people of Oregon are more than welcome to discard your subjective opinions.

See how that works?

 

[Conservative65]

That's because you agree with those on this matter.

Should a business be forced to serve naked customers?

Are naked customers protected by PA laws?

That's not what I asked. You say homos should be served because it's a public accommodation. Should naked people be served because it's a public accommodation.

Naked people aren't a public accommodation. When and if they are, talk to me.

Naked people can go into public accommodations.

Are naked people protected under public accommodation laws?

Its a simple question. You know the answer. I know the answer. I just want you to say it.

Should they be allowed to? I'm sure you say you don't care because it isn't in line with your faggot agenda.

On the contrary, I'd object to someone refusing to serve you because you were straight too.

At least in Oregon.

I know you're a faggot and have a personal stake in the matter. You know it. I just want you to say it.

Unlike you faggots I wouldn't care if someone homo, or anyone for that matter, refused to serve me for whatever reason. I don't feel like I have to be told yes. Freaks like you do. That's the difference. I move on and you push for government overreach.

 

[Conservative65]

That's because in this case you agree with the perverts demanding a yes answer.

Or more accurately, I think Oregon's application of PA laws is quite reasonable.

I'm sure you do because you agree with perversion. Why wouldn't you. You're one of those perverts.

I simply don't believe that you define 'perversion'. Nor that your subjective opinion has a thing to do with the law.

I'm sure a freak of nature like you wouldn't agree. Doesn't change that fags are perverted.

Says you, citing yourself. Which is gloriously irrelevant to any legal defintion or PA laws in Oregon.

You're more than welcome to your subjective opinions. Both and the people of Oregon are more than welcome to discard your subjective opinions.

See how that works?

You are more than welcome to be a fucking piece of shit faggot. The normal people are welcome to discard your kind. See how that works freak?

The best thing we can hope for your kind is for you to get AIDS.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't consider PA laws to be 'government thuggery'. But well within the State's unquestioned authority over intra-state commerce.

We've done this whole dance before.

That's because you agree with those on this matter.

Should a business be forced to serve naked customers?

Are naked customers protected by PA laws?

That's not what I asked. You say homos should be served because it's a public accommodation. Should naked people be served because it's a public accommodation.

I dont think that naked people are allowed in a food environment. I ran a place many years ago and wouldnt even serve someone if they didnt have a shirt on.

That was the point. Why shouldn't public accommodations be forced to serve naked customers if that is what they choose to do? Bakers are forced to serve faggots because they are a public accommodation.

Same reason they don't have to serve customers without money. No money and no clothes are not protected classes.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The best thing we can hope for your kind is for you to get AIDS.

You don't pray to Jesus with that mouth do you? If you do, don't, out of respect for Jesus.

 

[Skylar]

Or more accurately, I think Oregon's application of PA laws is quite reasonable.

I'm sure you do because you agree with perversion. Why wouldn't you. You're one of those perverts.

I simply don't believe that you define 'perversion'. Nor that your subjective opinion has a thing to do with the law.

I'm sure a freak of nature like you wouldn't agree. Doesn't change that fags are perverted.

Says you, citing yourself. Which is gloriously irrelevant to any legal defintion or PA laws in Oregon.

You're more than welcome to your subjective opinions. Both and the people of Oregon are more than welcome to discard your subjective opinions.

See how that works?

You are more than welcome to be a fucking piece of shit faggot. The normal people are welcome to discard your kind. See how that works freak?

And yet same sex marriage is legal in 50 of 50 States. And Sweet Cakes still paid $135,000 in fines.

Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. As its not your agreement that's necessary.

Its the law's.

 

[guno]

Or more accurately, I think Oregon's application of PA laws is quite reasonable.

I'm sure you do because you agree with perversion. Why wouldn't you. You're one of those perverts.

I simply don't believe that you define 'perversion'. Nor that your subjective opinion has a thing to do with the law.

I'm sure a freak of nature like you wouldn't agree. Doesn't change that fags are perverted.

Says you, citing yourself. Which is gloriously irrelevant to any legal defintion or PA laws in Oregon.

You're more than welcome to your subjective opinions. Both and the people of Oregon are more than welcome to discard your subjective opinions.

See how that works?

You are more than welcome to be a fucking piece of shit faggot. The normal people are welcome to discard your kind. See how that works freak?

The best thing we can hope for your kind is for you to get AIDS.

ah that christ stained love