Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Not according to the quote from the baker you edited out of my earlier post.Not the ones the clients desired. Not that it mattered, they will sue to force them to be.
I'm not understanding what you are trying to say.
The bakers sold wedding cakes, from the statement of facts their was never any discussion about design because as soon as Aaron Klien was introduced to the Mother and one of the brides and was told the wedding cake was going to be for two brides he refused service.
There was never any discussion of design.
>>>>
He said he serves gay people. He does not serve gay cakes. Essentially you're arguing gays and their cakes own extralegal rights.
BTW, they provide gay wedding cakes to no one. Not even you.
They are looking at a new bakery with their court winnings.
You are continuing a point which has been quoted and contradicts it. This is what you get for editing posts.BTW, they provide gay wedding cakes to no one. Not even you.
There is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake".
The above wedding cake is from the catalog from one of the two bakers (in this case Masterpiece).
A different-sex couple walks in and selects this cake from the catalog. Order accepted.
A same-sex couple walks in and select this cake from the catalog. Order rejected.
Please describe what ingredients or cooking process is different for this cake converting making it a "gay wedding cake"?
(Pssst - the answer is there isn't any.)
Therefore the difference is based on who the customer is and not the cake.
The baker sells Wedding Cakes not "straight wedding cakes" or "gay wedding cakes". The difference is the customer.
>>>>
I understand one of them changed her genes and ran off with a man.They are looking at a new bakery with their court winnings.
It's been years, the couple has already found a different bakery and had their wedding.
>>>>
This is a frontal assault on the 1st Amendment. The lesbian activists targeted Sweet Cakes because the proprietors were Christian for the purpose of creating a case to be used to end the 1st Amendment. If Hillary had been elected and a radical left SCOTUS appointee were on the bench, this would end freedom of religion once and for all, as was planned. However, you have 5 to 4 who support the United States Constitution, so when this get to the court, you will lose and the 1st Amendment will be upheld.
Of course. The same is said of other races when they exercise their civil rights. The same is said of other religions when they exercise their civil rights. The same is said of women when they exercise their civil rights. The same is said of the handicapped when they exercise their civil rights.It proves that like so many minorities, gays are vindictive, attention-whoring, bullying, chip-on-shoulder crybabies, second only to the blacks. Gays are also the ultimate chickenshit cowards, because they would NEVER to that with the muslims they idiotically love. Even though Islam is the most gay-public-executing, gay-torturing, gay slaughterhouse on the planet.
Like I always say here, it's the gays' entitled, ingrate-punk attitudes/personalities I find a THOUSANDFOLD more disgusting than their physical fucking. When it comes to strange sexual fetishes, I've seen/heard it all so I'm pretty numb to it (I'm a long-time Jerry Springer watcher so it takes more than garden-variety cornholing to shock me.). What I hate is how they THINK.
Not according to the quote from the baker you edited out of my earlier post.
He said he serves gay people. He does not serve gay cakes. Essentially you're arguing gays and their cakes own extralegal rights.
A cake is not a class of customer.This is a frontal assault on the 1st Amendment. The lesbian activists targeted Sweet Cakes because the proprietors were Christian for the purpose of creating a case to be used to end the 1st Amendment. If Hillary had been elected and a radical left SCOTUS appointee were on the bench, this would end freedom of religion once and for all, as was planned. However, you have 5 to 4 who support the United States Constitution, so when this get to the court, you will lose and the 1st Amendment will be upheld.
The court already address it in 1968 in the case of Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises and the court ruled that a business could not claim it was against their religion to serve certain classes of customers under Public Accommodation laws.
Then in 1983 the SCOTUS ruled against discrimination based on religious justifications in the case of Bob Jones University v. United States.
>>>>
The dykes had full and equal access to all the goods and services he provided to everyone.Not according to the quote from the baker you edited out of my earlier post.
You never provided a quote saying that the baker was willing to provide a Wedding Cake just like they advertised as part of their business.
Selling "other" products but denying the sale of Wedding Cakes violates the "full and equal" provision of the law which I previously quoted for you.
He said he serves gay people. He does not serve gay cakes. Essentially you're arguing gays and their cakes own extralegal rights.
Whether he provides a subgroup of goods and services is irrelevant. As previously quoted the law specifies "full and equal" access to goods and services. A subset is not "full and equal".
Nope, the bakers violated the Public Accommodation laws in denying a good and service normally provided in the course of business (Wedding Cakes). The baker violated the law by refusing service based on the characteristics of the customer.
>>>>
Which one(s)?It proves that like so many minorities, gays are vindictive, attention-whoring, bullying, chip-on-shoulder crybabies, second only to the blacks. Gays are also the ultimate chickenshit cowards, because they would NEVER to that with the muslims they idiotically love. Even though Islam is the most gay-public-executing, gay-torturing, gay slaughterhouse on the planet.
Like I always say here, it's the gays' entitled, ingrate-punk attitudes/personalities I find a THOUSANDFOLD more disgusting than their physical fucking. When it comes to strange sexual fetishes, I've seen/heard it all so I'm pretty numb to it (I'm a long-time Jerry Springer watcher so it takes more than garden-variety cornholing to shock me.). What I hate is how they THINK.
So, you're ok with other minorities getting PA protection, just not gays?
Do you believe in God?
They testified that the Lesbian activists were offered sheet cakes out of the display, which they refused.
Oregon has declared war on the 1st Amendment, but faces a pro-Constitution SCOTUS.
It proves that like so many minorities, gays are vindictive, attention-whoring, bullying, chip-on-shoulder crybabies, second only to the blacks. Gays are also the ultimate chickenshit cowards, because they would NEVER to that with the muslims they idiotically love. Even though Islam is the most gay-public-executing, gay-torturing, gay slaughterhouse on the planet.
Like I always say here, it's the gays' entitled, ingrate-punk attitudes/personalities I find a THOUSANDFOLD more disgusting than their physical fucking. When it comes to strange sexual fetishes, I've seen/heard it all so I'm pretty numb to it (I'm a long-time Jerry Springer watcher so it takes more than garden-variety cornholing to shock me.). What I hate is how they THINK.
So, you're ok with other minorities getting PA protection, just not gays?
Do you believe in God?
You are continuing a point which has been quoted and contradicts it. This is what you get for editing posts.
They didn't sue....if you don't know the particular details of the case, your argument is rather unimpressive.I am against the fact that the petty assholes sued them over a cake. Targeted them then sued them.Open question to those on the thread who arguing against the judge's ruling: Are you opposed to protected classes and PA laws in general? Or are you just opposed to adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes?
They serve gays. That's what he said. Beyond serving gays with equal access to everything he offers, what is his business required to do. You tell us.You are continuing a point which has been quoted and contradicts it. This is what you get for editing posts.
You have never supplied a quote from the baker that they agreed to sell the couple a Wedding Cake just like they provide to different sex couples.
You linked article (you didn't provide a quote) indicated they were willing to sell OTHER products, which is irrelevant to the case before the courts as the law specifically says "full and equal" not a subset of goods and services.
>>>>
BTW, they provide gay wedding cakes to no one. Not even you.He said he serves gay customers. That is the extent of his requirement by law.
False.
The law is provided below. It does not say as long as we sell one product to a customer, we can refuse another other products we provide as part of our normal business. The laws specifically says "full and equal" pertaining to providing goods and services, not a "subset" of goods and services.
ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes
Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.
He does not have to serve them anything not on the menu.
Wedding Cakes were on the "menu".
>>>>
They provide nothing to anyone any more. That happens when you don't follow the law.
What duty do Americans have to follow blatantly unconstitutional laws?
An assault on freedom of religion is an assault on liberty and the Constitution. However, you Maoists are destined to lose. You never calculated a Hillary loss so the assumption was another Marxist like Kagan on the court to put an end to Civil Rights.
A cake is not a class of customer.
Oregon Bakers: You get to pay 135,000 for being radical religious morons, Judge so orders!A cake is not a class of customer.
Of course not.
The bakers refused to provide a product based on the class of the customer. The provide Wedding Cakes (the product), they refused the couples (customer).
If the baker doesn't want to provide Wedding Cakes, they are not required to. Mr. Phillips (Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado) has indicated he has stopped producing wedding cakes for different-sex or same-sex couples during litigation. That is perfectly legal, he is not required to produce Wedding Cakes.
>>>>
The dykes had full and equal access to all the goods and services he provided to everyone.
