Oregon Bakers: You get to pay 135,000 for being radical religious morons, Judge so orders!

[Aba Incieni]

The bakery would not sell that same cake to a hetero couple. Why should a gay couple deserve something that would not be sold to a straight couple?

Is it because gay people are special people?

The cake image is from the Masterpiece Cakeshop catalog of cakes they sell to different-sex couples. Mr. Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop is the Colorado baker that refused to sell a Wedding Cake to a same-sex couple.

So your saying that one of the bakers that refused to sell a Wedding Cake to a same-sex couple wouldn't sell a cake from their Wedding Cake Catalog to a different-sex couple is just beyond weird.


>>>>

That's what you're saying lol. This cake was somehow different than all the cakes they offered. It wasn't that they don't serve gay people, as I've shown.

How was this cake "somehow" different than all the other cakes they offered? Describe the difference to us.

That is the case. The baker refused to sell the dykes a specific cake that they offered to everyone else. The bakers claim they wouldn't bake it for anyone, not even super special people.

 

[bodecea]

Because if the cakes were not different, then there is no case. We know the bakery served gays, so that is not the issue. It was a cake that was not offered to gays or straights or blacks or whites.

The fact that they may have sold them other products is irrelevant.

Providing all products and services to one group while limiting the same products and services to another another group is a clear violation of the law. I've posted the Oregon statutes for you, the law requires full and equal access to goods and services, not a subset of goods and services.

Why should the gays get a cake that is somehow different from those offered everyone else. Are they special people?

Your attempted strawman argument fails in view of facts agreed to by the bakers, there was never any discussion of design at the Wedding Cake tasting appointment since service was refused as soon as Mr. Klein understood that the party Ms. Klein invited included 2 brides.


>>>>

You haven't made a cogent case at all. I've totally destroyed your c/p's throughout. To the point you simply paste without addressing the issue.

Why were the dykes not served?

The gay women were not served because they were gay and were planning a wedding....oh, and the husband is an ass.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Because if the cakes were not different, then there is no case. We know the bakery served gays, so that is not the issue. It was a cake that was not offered to gays or straights or blacks or whites.

The fact that they may have sold them other products is irrelevant.

Providing all products and services to one group while limiting the same products and services to another another group is a clear violation of the law. I've posted the Oregon statutes for you, the law requires full and equal access to goods and services, not a subset of goods and services.

Why should the gays get a cake that is somehow different from those offered everyone else. Are they special people?

Your attempted strawman argument fails in view of facts agreed to by the bakers, there was never any discussion of design at the Wedding Cake tasting appointment since service was refused as soon as Mr. Klein understood that the party Ms. Klein invited included 2 brides.


>>>>

You haven't made a cogent case at all. I've totally destroyed your c/p's throughout. To the point you simply paste without addressing the issue.

Why were the dykes not served?

The gay women were not served because they were gay and were planning a wedding....oh, and the husband is an ass.

The baker served gays, so that can't be it.

 

[dblack]

Most of what's being discussed here is irrelevant. The real target of the law is the expression of unpopular biases. The baker could have avoided prosecution by simply not giving a reason, or making something up. The reason he was prosecuted is because he is protesting gay marriage, or perhaps homosexuality in general, via his economic choices. It's no different than boycotting 'Chick-fil-a' if you don't like what they're up to.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The gay women were not served because they were gay and were planning a wedding....oh, and the husband is an ass.

There is no such thing as a wedding between two people of the same sex. What the sick perverts were planning was a disgusting, immoral mockery of a wedding. The bakers were right to not want anything to do with it.

 

[mdk]

Gays getting married mocks my marriage.

 

[bodecea]

The gay women were not served because they were gay and were planning a wedding....oh, and the husband is an ass.

There is no such thing as a wedding between two people of the same sex. What the sick perverts were planning was a disgusting, immoral mockery of a wedding. The bakers were right to not want anything to do with it.

There most certainly is.....sorry that you don't get your way in this secular country. We aren't based on your so-called religion.

 

[bodecea]

Gays getting married mocks my marriage.

If his marriage is weak, most likely everything mocks his marriage.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is no such thing as a wedding between two people of the same sex. What the sick perverts were planning was a disgusting, immoral mockery of a wedding. The bakers were right to not want anything to do with it.

There most certainly is.....sorry that you don't get your way in this secular country. We aren't based on your so-called religion.

It is one thing to demand the right for consenting adults to engage in immoral sexual perversions.

It is something else entirely to demand that decent people, who want nothing to do with these perversions, must provide goods and services to support them.

 

[dblack]

The gay women were not served because they were gay and were planning a wedding....oh, and the husband is an ass.

There is no such thing as a wedding between two people of the same sex. What the sick perverts were planning was a disgusting, immoral mockery of a wedding. The bakers were right to not want anything to do with it.

And I think they were judgy jerkoffs. But they have every right to be judgy jerkoffs. We all do.

 

[bodecea]

There is no such thing as a wedding between two people of the same sex. What the sick perverts were planning was a disgusting, immoral mockery of a wedding. The bakers were right to not want anything to do with it.

There most certainly is.....sorry that you don't get your way in this secular country. We aren't based on your so-called religion.

It is one thing to demand the right for consenting adults to engage in immoral sexual perversions.

It is something else entirely to demand that decent people, who want nothing to do with these perversions, must provide goods and services to support them.

I feel the same way about multiple divorced people getting remarried...but I have no say in their disgusting habits.

 

[Silhouette]

It is something else entirely to demand that decent people, who want nothing to do with these perversions, must provide goods and services to support them.

Especially when those perversions are behaviors and not inborn traits like race or gender.