Pain lingers for lesbian couple denied in Sweet Cakes case

[Katzndogz]

Yes, they have limitations, but those limits must be only in the case of a compelling government interest, and then have to be limited in the least aggressive means possible.

In the case of trying to kill your son because of demonic possession, that is a criminal act against another person that causes actual physical harm.

Why does a person give up any right when they decide to sell something? Where in the constitution does it say you lose your rights when you want to provide a good or service? Where does it say that if you want to have unpopular opinions, or be forced into working for someone else, that you have to go against your morality or your own choice?

You are saying the right of a gay person to buy a cake, a cake they can get anywhere else, trumps every single constitutionally given right of a person, and if they refuse, the government can crush them and ruin them?

You do realize that you are saying the government gets to take sides in a battle of butt hurt? and gets to ruin one side because the feelings of the other side are more popular with the government and the elites who run it?

Well, one of the things you have a govt for is to be an arbitrator when things go wrong between individuals. When people cause harm to others, either physical or mental then the govt steps in.

Now, I know the right has this lack of feeling thing when it comes to other people, a lack of empathy, but that doesn't mean that people don't feel harm when they're in their own country and yet treated like second class citizens.

All men are created equal was said in 1776, and yet people in 2016 don't want this to be true.

I didn't say people gave up rights. They're still individuals. However they've set up a business. They can choose to walk away from that business if they choose. Therefore they still have their rights and their rights are not being infringed upon. B

There are laws for what individuals can do, and there are laws for what businesses can do.

There are laws on how they can treat employees, there are laws on how they can treat customers, there are laws for a lot of things, and the people who decide to start a business MUST adhere to these laws, don't you think?

hurt feelings are not "harm". and what about the hurt feelings of the religious people forced to provide a service they don't want to? Why is their butthurt less than the gay couple's butthurt?

You have a lack of empathy for the people being forced to either do something they don't want to do, or give up their way of earning a living. Me doth think you protest too much. You don't care because you don't like their positions or beliefs, so, pffft, fuck em, right?

What we have here is some people being more equal than others. again, why are the gay couples hurt feelings more important than the religious person's hurt feelings?

yes, there are different laws, but in this case you are not forcing some massive corporation to do something some people in it don't want to do, you are forcing a small business owner to 'bake or fuck off".

There are of course laws for the situations you list, but where is the reasonableness in forcing a small business providing a contracted non-necessary, easily replaceable service to go against their nature, or go out of business?

besides, of course, your incorrigible desire to fuck over people who disagree with you.

See, I said you wouldn't understand. People who think being treated like this is somehow fair and then get all annoyed because then these people go to court.

I understand perfectly. You think government should be the arbiter of who's feelings are more equal than others. You have not answered the question of why the gay couple's butthurt deserves protection, and the religious person's butthurt does not. Well you tried with the whole "you give up your rights when you try to sell something tactic, but I reject that one on its face, especially for small, private owner businesses.

So I would have to assume your views on this are that you think gay butthurt is more important than religious butthurt.

So, you're saying that people should just be able to go around doing what they like? Bus companies should be allowed to force blacks to sit at the back, diners should be able to force black people to sit on the floor? You want to live in a society like this, then fine, go find a country that allows that.

Diners should not be forced to have dinner at the homes of black people and drivers should not be forced to allow black people in their cars.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, they have limitations, but those limits must be only in the case of a compelling government interest, and then have to be limited in the least aggressive means possible.

In the case of trying to kill your son because of demonic possession, that is a criminal act against another person that causes actual physical harm.

Why does a person give up any right when they decide to sell something? Where in the constitution does it say you lose your rights when you want to provide a good or service? Where does it say that if you want to have unpopular opinions, or be forced into working for someone else, that you have to go against your morality or your own choice?

You are saying the right of a gay person to buy a cake, a cake they can get anywhere else, trumps every single constitutionally given right of a person, and if they refuse, the government can crush them and ruin them?

You do realize that you are saying the government gets to take sides in a battle of butt hurt? and gets to ruin one side because the feelings of the other side are more popular with the government and the elites who run it?

Well, one of the things you have a govt for is to be an arbitrator when things go wrong between individuals. When people cause harm to others, either physical or mental then the govt steps in.

Now, I know the right has this lack of feeling thing when it comes to other people, a lack of empathy, but that doesn't mean that people don't feel harm when they're in their own country and yet treated like second class citizens.

All men are created equal was said in 1776, and yet people in 2016 don't want this to be true.

I didn't say people gave up rights. They're still individuals. However they've set up a business. They can choose to walk away from that business if they choose. Therefore they still have their rights and their rights are not being infringed upon. B

There are laws for what individuals can do, and there are laws for what businesses can do.

There are laws on how they can treat employees, there are laws on how they can treat customers, there are laws for a lot of things, and the people who decide to start a business MUST adhere to these laws, don't you think?

hurt feelings are not "harm". and what about the hurt feelings of the religious people forced to provide a service they don't want to? Why is their butthurt less than the gay couple's butthurt?

You have a lack of empathy for the people being forced to either do something they don't want to do, or give up their way of earning a living. Me doth think you protest too much. You don't care because you don't like their positions or beliefs, so, pffft, fuck em, right?

What we have here is some people being more equal than others. again, why are the gay couples hurt feelings more important than the religious person's hurt feelings?

yes, there are different laws, but in this case you are not forcing some massive corporation to do something some people in it don't want to do, you are forcing a small business owner to 'bake or fuck off".

There are of course laws for the situations you list, but where is the reasonableness in forcing a small business providing a contracted non-necessary, easily replaceable service to go against their nature, or go out of business?

besides, of course, your incorrigible desire to fuck over people who disagree with you.

See, I said you wouldn't understand. People who think being treated like this is somehow fair and then get all annoyed because then these people go to court.

I understand perfectly. You think government should be the arbiter of who's feelings are more equal than others. You have not answered the question of why the gay couple's butthurt deserves protection, and the religious person's butthurt does not. Well you tried with the whole "you give up your rights when you try to sell something tactic, but I reject that one on its face, especially for small, private owner businesses.

So I would have to assume your views on this are that you think gay butthurt is more important than religious butthurt.

So, you're saying that people should just be able to go around doing what they like? Bus companies should be allowed to force blacks to sit at the back, diners should be able to force black people to sit on the floor? You want to live in a society like this, then fine, go find a country that allows that.

What I am saying is you can just be absolutist and say "bake that damn cake, peasant", without taking into account both the situation and the overall impact of a decision on EITHER side of the argument.

Bus services are usually part of the government, or at least agencies that work for government, and government has to be 100% neutral, so no back of the bus. Diners as a point of service operation can be required to seat everyone equally, although in this day and age any place that makes black people sit on the floor probably won't be open long without government action. Now if someone wanted to rent the diner out for a function, oh, say, a wedding, then the owner should have the choice to refuse.

Why do want to live in a society that can ruin someone over something as trivial as not baking a wedding cake? Oh right, because again, you like one side, despise the other, so as long as the government bully is giving the wedgie to the people you don't like, it's A-OK.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Liberal control freaks really want the government to have total control. Hurting the feelings of a minority should be a punishable offense.

Uh huh? The right don't want to control drugs, alcohol, where you can cross the road, and then make wars so they can be tough on shit like stopping Muslims coming to the country.

Oh please, spare me the fake nonsense.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, one of the things you have a govt for is to be an arbitrator when things go wrong between individuals. When people cause harm to others, either physical or mental then the govt steps in.

Now, I know the right has this lack of feeling thing when it comes to other people, a lack of empathy, but that doesn't mean that people don't feel harm when they're in their own country and yet treated like second class citizens.

All men are created equal was said in 1776, and yet people in 2016 don't want this to be true.

I didn't say people gave up rights. They're still individuals. However they've set up a business. They can choose to walk away from that business if they choose. Therefore they still have their rights and their rights are not being infringed upon. B

There are laws for what individuals can do, and there are laws for what businesses can do.

There are laws on how they can treat employees, there are laws on how they can treat customers, there are laws for a lot of things, and the people who decide to start a business MUST adhere to these laws, don't you think?

hurt feelings are not "harm". and what about the hurt feelings of the religious people forced to provide a service they don't want to? Why is their butthurt less than the gay couple's butthurt?

You have a lack of empathy for the people being forced to either do something they don't want to do, or give up their way of earning a living. Me doth think you protest too much. You don't care because you don't like their positions or beliefs, so, pffft, fuck em, right?

What we have here is some people being more equal than others. again, why are the gay couples hurt feelings more important than the religious person's hurt feelings?

yes, there are different laws, but in this case you are not forcing some massive corporation to do something some people in it don't want to do, you are forcing a small business owner to 'bake or fuck off".

There are of course laws for the situations you list, but where is the reasonableness in forcing a small business providing a contracted non-necessary, easily replaceable service to go against their nature, or go out of business?

besides, of course, your incorrigible desire to fuck over people who disagree with you.

See, I said you wouldn't understand. People who think being treated like this is somehow fair and then get all annoyed because then these people go to court.

I understand perfectly. You think government should be the arbiter of who's feelings are more equal than others. You have not answered the question of why the gay couple's butthurt deserves protection, and the religious person's butthurt does not. Well you tried with the whole "you give up your rights when you try to sell something tactic, but I reject that one on its face, especially for small, private owner businesses.

So I would have to assume your views on this are that you think gay butthurt is more important than religious butthurt.

So, you're saying that people should just be able to go around doing what they like? Bus companies should be allowed to force blacks to sit at the back, diners should be able to force black people to sit on the floor? You want to live in a society like this, then fine, go find a country that allows that.

Diners should not be forced to have dinner at the homes of black people and drivers should not be forced to allow black people in their cars.

What? What are you talking about?

Should a black person be told to sit at the back of a bus because they're black? Should a black person be told to eat in a special area just for blacks in a diner? Yes or not?

 

[frigidweirdo]

But we don't live in a society where you can do what you like.

"I don't want to pay taxes, no means no"
"I don't want to keep the noise down on my music, no means no"

Problem is you don't live in a country where anarchy reigns supreme. Sorry.

I said no and meant no. Can someone force you out of your house and into a concert hall where the music is too loud? Paying taxes is an arrangement between a citizen and the government. It does not involve the whims of another citizen.

We are supposed to live in a society where we do whst we like. It's called freedom. Why do you dislike it so much? What makes someone else's judgment on what you do better than your own? How personal does interference need to be before you say no?

But you're picking and choosing where no means no. This is the problem.

Can the govt force you to do things?

Yes, it can force you to go to war, force you to go to prison, force you to pay them money, force you to do quite a number of things, actually.

No, you're not supposed to live in a society where you do whatever you like.

If you didn't notice there is something called the Bill of Rights and the theory behind rights is that you can do what you like AS LONG AS you don't harm or hurt other people. In other words, all rights have LIMITS.

I'm sorry no one managed to tell you this before. But it's there.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government not on individuals. This must be the first you are hearing this.

There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not get your feelings hurt. The government can force you to give it money. When an individual forces you to give him money it's theft.

The government cannot force you to be nice. It can not force you to be a friend or a good neighbor. It cannot force a business to provide good customer service. The government cannot stop someone from being nasty, or insulting. It won't stop anyone from hurting your feelings even if you cry for a week.

Where do you get these nonsense ideas?

I didn't say the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the people. You just decided I had said that. What I said was that the ideals of the Bill of Rights exist and the US is bound up in this theory whether you like it or not.

I didn't say there was a right to not be offended. However we live in a society and the people have decided how they want society to be, and they make rules and regulations to make sure that happens. And yes, there are laws that say you can't do some things, things that hurt people.

No, government can't force you to be nice. But it CAN force you to respect the laws of the land. And if those laws say a business can't discriminate against someone based on gender, sexual preference, skin color, ethnicity, then YOU CAN'T DO IT.

And you can clearly see what happens when perverts win their case. Of course we can do things that hurt people. Surely you can see that being done every day.

Pervert? By pervert I assume you mean something like a man who gets a hard on, or a woman who gets wet between the legs?

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberal control freaks really want the government to have total control. Hurting the feelings of a minority should be a punishable offense.

Uh huh? The right don't want to control drugs, alcohol, where you can cross the road, and then make wars so they can be tough on shit like stopping Muslims coming to the country.

Oh please, spare me the fake nonsense.

I have never seen such fake nonsense as you have been trying to cook up even after you've been made a fool of dozens of times. This bit of silliness takes the "cake".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, one of the things you have a govt for is to be an arbitrator when things go wrong between individuals. When people cause harm to others, either physical or mental then the govt steps in.

Now, I know the right has this lack of feeling thing when it comes to other people, a lack of empathy, but that doesn't mean that people don't feel harm when they're in their own country and yet treated like second class citizens.

All men are created equal was said in 1776, and yet people in 2016 don't want this to be true.

I didn't say people gave up rights. They're still individuals. However they've set up a business. They can choose to walk away from that business if they choose. Therefore they still have their rights and their rights are not being infringed upon. B

There are laws for what individuals can do, and there are laws for what businesses can do.

There are laws on how they can treat employees, there are laws on how they can treat customers, there are laws for a lot of things, and the people who decide to start a business MUST adhere to these laws, don't you think?

hurt feelings are not "harm". and what about the hurt feelings of the religious people forced to provide a service they don't want to? Why is their butthurt less than the gay couple's butthurt?

You have a lack of empathy for the people being forced to either do something they don't want to do, or give up their way of earning a living. Me doth think you protest too much. You don't care because you don't like their positions or beliefs, so, pffft, fuck em, right?

What we have here is some people being more equal than others. again, why are the gay couples hurt feelings more important than the religious person's hurt feelings?

yes, there are different laws, but in this case you are not forcing some massive corporation to do something some people in it don't want to do, you are forcing a small business owner to 'bake or fuck off".

There are of course laws for the situations you list, but where is the reasonableness in forcing a small business providing a contracted non-necessary, easily replaceable service to go against their nature, or go out of business?

besides, of course, your incorrigible desire to fuck over people who disagree with you.

See, I said you wouldn't understand. People who think being treated like this is somehow fair and then get all annoyed because then these people go to court.

I understand perfectly. You think government should be the arbiter of who's feelings are more equal than others. You have not answered the question of why the gay couple's butthurt deserves protection, and the religious person's butthurt does not. Well you tried with the whole "you give up your rights when you try to sell something tactic, but I reject that one on its face, especially for small, private owner businesses.

So I would have to assume your views on this are that you think gay butthurt is more important than religious butthurt.

So, you're saying that people should just be able to go around doing what they like? Bus companies should be allowed to force blacks to sit at the back, diners should be able to force black people to sit on the floor? You want to live in a society like this, then fine, go find a country that allows that.

What I am saying is you can just be absolutist and say "bake that damn cake, peasant", without taking into account both the situation and the overall impact of a decision on EITHER side of the argument.

Bus services are usually part of the government, or at least agencies that work for government, and government has to be 100% neutral, so no back of the bus. Diners as a point of service operation can be required to seat everyone equally, although in this day and age any place that makes black people sit on the floor probably won't be open long without government action. Now if someone wanted to rent the diner out for a function, oh, say, a wedding, then the owner should have the choice to refuse.

Why do want to live in a society that can ruin someone over something as trivial as not baking a wedding cake? Oh right, because again, you like one side, despise the other, so as long as the government bully is giving the wedgie to the people you don't like, it's A-OK.

Does the owner not have the right to refuse if someone wants to hire out the place? I've not come across this in the US, but I do know (from Charles and Camilla's wedding) that if you register to be a wedding place, then you have to be a wedding place, and people can then apply to have their wedding there. I'm not saying that's right, but it's the way it goes there.

However if the owner speaks to the person and says "you know, that's kind of a busy day for us, it's not possible" or "we don't usually do weddings" something like that, then so what? I they come out and say "you're black, we won't do that", that's something else.

Do we want a society that can ruin someone (they didn't get ruined though, did they? Probably richer than before) for breaking the law?

I mean the US gives life for people who are convicted three times for smoking illegal drugs which may not do anyone any harm but the person smoking.

I don't see the bakers' case as something small and trivial. It's a MASSIVE thing, hence why so many people are talking about it, and for so long. It's about equality, it's about whether people can go around discriminating just based on something someone was born with.

It's either a yes no case. Either you can, or you can't. Either you can discriminate based on color, race, gender, disabilities, or you can't. And people who oppose the bakers are saying you can't. Those who support the bakers are saying yes. And those who oppose the bakers thought this thing went away in the 1960s.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Liberal control freaks really want the government to have total control. Hurting the feelings of a minority should be a punishable offense.

Uh huh? The right don't want to control drugs, alcohol, where you can cross the road, and then make wars so they can be tough on shit like stopping Muslims coming to the country.

Oh please, spare me the fake nonsense.

I have never seen such fake nonsense as you have been trying to cook up even after you've been made a fool of dozens of times. This bit of silliness takes the "cake".

I'm sorry, what's your point?

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberal control freaks really want the government to have total control. Hurting the feelings of a minority should be a punishable offense.

Uh huh? The right don't want to control drugs, alcohol, where you can cross the road, and then make wars so they can be tough on shit like stopping Muslims coming to the country.

Oh please, spare me the fake nonsense.

I have never seen such fake nonsense as you have been trying to cook up even after you've been made a fool of dozens of times. This bit of silliness takes the "cake".

I'm sorry, what's your point?

My point is you don't have one. You have gone so far afield that you are no longer coherent.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Liberal control freaks really want the government to have total control. Hurting the feelings of a minority should be a punishable offense.

Uh huh? The right don't want to control drugs, alcohol, where you can cross the road, and then make wars so they can be tough on shit like stopping Muslims coming to the country.

Oh please, spare me the fake nonsense.

I have never seen such fake nonsense as you have been trying to cook up even after you've been made a fool of dozens of times. This bit of silliness takes the "cake".

I'm sorry, what's your point?

My point is you don't have one. You have gone so far afield that you are no longer coherent.

No, your point is that you'll attack whenever your argument doesn't stand up to it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberal control freaks really want the government to have total control. Hurting the feelings of a minority should be a punishable offense.

Uh huh? The right don't want to control drugs, alcohol, where you can cross the road, and then make wars so they can be tough on shit like stopping Muslims coming to the country.

Oh please, spare me the fake nonsense.

I have never seen such fake nonsense as you have been trying to cook up even after you've been made a fool of dozens of times. This bit of silliness takes the "cake".

I'm sorry, what's your point?

My point is you don't have one. You have gone so far afield that you are no longer coherent.

No, your point is that you'll attack whenever your argument doesn't stand up to it.

How many people just this morning have tried to coax you back to reality?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Uh huh? The right don't want to control drugs, alcohol, where you can cross the road, and then make wars so they can be tough on shit like stopping Muslims coming to the country.

Oh please, spare me the fake nonsense.

I have never seen such fake nonsense as you have been trying to cook up even after you've been made a fool of dozens of times. This bit of silliness takes the "cake".

I'm sorry, what's your point?

My point is you don't have one. You have gone so far afield that you are no longer coherent.

No, your point is that you'll attack whenever your argument doesn't stand up to it.

How many people just this morning have tried to coax you back to reality?

None as far as I can see. I get a lot of people, all the time, trying to pass of their nonsense as reality though.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Can we have a collective "AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

In all seriousness, I am absolutely against anyone harassing these women, but they are the ones who went after the Klein's.

The hate keeps coming: Pain lingers for lesbian couple denied in Sweet Cakes case

It's just a cake, Laurel Bowman-Cryer used to tell her wife, Rachel. But three and a half years have passed, and the hate mail keeps coming.

Back in 2013, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa made headlines when they refused to make the lesbians' wedding cake. A state official, in a move that's redefined his political career, eventually ordered the bakers to pay $135,000.

The Bowman-Cryers have received thousands of Facebook messages, each one calling them fat or evil, the dumb lesbians who ruined those Christian bakers' lives.

As they waited for their daughter's school bus this May, Rachel's cell phone dinged with a new missive.

"I am buying up my ammo right now you filthy, ugly, disgusting, fat, stupid, cruel, anti-Christian piece of liberal scum," she read aloud. "I am getting ready for the war so I hope you have a good hiding place, you sick, disgusting, miserable, piece of degenerate lesbian scum."

The Bowman-Cryers say they never wanted the money, which remains locked in a government account. They say they never wanted a war.

For three and a half years, they have hidden, believing in time their names would disappear from the headlines. They didn't answer the phone. They declined hundreds of interviews, quit their jobs and stopped leaving the house.

Their silence has not protected them. As the Bowman-Cryers retreated, the fury over their case grew louder.

The bakers, Aaron and Melissa Klein, appealed their fines and hired former President George H.W. Bush's White House lawyer. They toured the country with presidential candidate Ted Cruz as the face of a new fight for business owners' religious freedom.

The legalization of same-sex marriage isn't the end of the story, the Kleins told crowds from Iowa to Washington, D.C. The government, they said, wants to force Christian business owners to help gay people marry. The solution, the Kleins warned receptive lawmakers, would be legislation protecting religious liberty. Arkansas, North Carolina and Mississippi have approved bills since then, curtailing the civil rights gay people fought to win.

The hate keeps coming: Pain lingers for lesbian couple denied in Sweet Cakes case

I hope they get harrassed to the point they commit suicide. Mess with people's livliehoods by government force....I have no pity for you.

Where's that Conservative love of justice here? You hope they commit suicide? Where's that Conservative love of human life we are constantly preached about?

All I see is that Conservative hatred for people other than themselves!

I think my point is justice wasn't served and that justice would be served with the dikes commiting suicide.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Can we have a collective "AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

In all seriousness, I am absolutely against anyone harassing these women, but they are the ones who went after the Klein's.

The hate keeps coming: Pain lingers for lesbian couple denied in Sweet Cakes case

It's just a cake, Laurel Bowman-Cryer used to tell her wife, Rachel. But three and a half years have passed, and the hate mail keeps coming.

Back in 2013, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa made headlines when they refused to make the lesbians' wedding cake. A state official, in a move that's redefined his political career, eventually ordered the bakers to pay $135,000.

The Bowman-Cryers have received thousands of Facebook messages, each one calling them fat or evil, the dumb lesbians who ruined those Christian bakers' lives.

As they waited for their daughter's school bus this May, Rachel's cell phone dinged with a new missive.

"I am buying up my ammo right now you filthy, ugly, disgusting, fat, stupid, cruel, anti-Christian piece of liberal scum," she read aloud. "I am getting ready for the war so I hope you have a good hiding place, you sick, disgusting, miserable, piece of degenerate lesbian scum."

The Bowman-Cryers say they never wanted the money, which remains locked in a government account. They say they never wanted a war.

For three and a half years, they have hidden, believing in time their names would disappear from the headlines. They didn't answer the phone. They declined hundreds of interviews, quit their jobs and stopped leaving the house.

Their silence has not protected them. As the Bowman-Cryers retreated, the fury over their case grew louder.

The bakers, Aaron and Melissa Klein, appealed their fines and hired former President George H.W. Bush's White House lawyer. They toured the country with presidential candidate Ted Cruz as the face of a new fight for business owners' religious freedom.

The legalization of same-sex marriage isn't the end of the story, the Kleins told crowds from Iowa to Washington, D.C. The government, they said, wants to force Christian business owners to help gay people marry. The solution, the Kleins warned receptive lawmakers, would be legislation protecting religious liberty. Arkansas, North Carolina and Mississippi have approved bills since then, curtailing the civil rights gay people fought to win.

The hate keeps coming: Pain lingers for lesbian couple denied in Sweet Cakes case

I hope they get harrassed to the point they commit suicide. Mess with people's livliehoods by government force....I have no pity for you.

Where's that Conservative love of justice here? You hope they commit suicide? Where's that Conservative love of human life we are constantly preached about?

All I see is that Conservative hatred for people other than themselves!

I think my point is justice wasn't served and that justice would be served with the dikes commiting suicide.

When you mature you will realise that saying this sort of thing isnt clever. Even though you are only doing it to gain peer approval amongst chimps.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Can we have a collective "AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

In all seriousness, I am absolutely against anyone harassing these women, but they are the ones who went after the Klein's.

The hate keeps coming: Pain lingers for lesbian couple denied in Sweet Cakes case

It's just a cake, Laurel Bowman-Cryer used to tell her wife, Rachel. But three and a half years have passed, and the hate mail keeps coming.

Back in 2013, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa made headlines when they refused to make the lesbians' wedding cake. A state official, in a move that's redefined his political career, eventually ordered the bakers to pay $135,000.

The Bowman-Cryers have received thousands of Facebook messages, each one calling them fat or evil, the dumb lesbians who ruined those Christian bakers' lives.

As they waited for their daughter's school bus this May, Rachel's cell phone dinged with a new missive.

"I am buying up my ammo right now you filthy, ugly, disgusting, fat, stupid, cruel, anti-Christian piece of liberal scum," she read aloud. "I am getting ready for the war so I hope you have a good hiding place, you sick, disgusting, miserable, piece of degenerate lesbian scum."

The Bowman-Cryers say they never wanted the money, which remains locked in a government account. They say they never wanted a war.

For three and a half years, they have hidden, believing in time their names would disappear from the headlines. They didn't answer the phone. They declined hundreds of interviews, quit their jobs and stopped leaving the house.

Their silence has not protected them. As the Bowman-Cryers retreated, the fury over their case grew louder.

The bakers, Aaron and Melissa Klein, appealed their fines and hired former President George H.W. Bush's White House lawyer. They toured the country with presidential candidate Ted Cruz as the face of a new fight for business owners' religious freedom.

The legalization of same-sex marriage isn't the end of the story, the Kleins told crowds from Iowa to Washington, D.C. The government, they said, wants to force Christian business owners to help gay people marry. The solution, the Kleins warned receptive lawmakers, would be legislation protecting religious liberty. Arkansas, North Carolina and Mississippi have approved bills since then, curtailing the civil rights gay people fought to win.

The hate keeps coming: Pain lingers for lesbian couple denied in Sweet Cakes case

I hope they get harrassed to the point they commit suicide. Mess with people's livliehoods by government force....I have no pity for you.

Where's that Conservative love of justice here? You hope they commit suicide? Where's that Conservative love of human life we are constantly preached about?

All I see is that Conservative hatred for people other than themselves!

I think my point is justice wasn't served and that justice would be served with the dikes commiting suicide.

When you mature you will realise that saying this sort of thing isnt clever. Even though you are only doing it to gain peer approval amongst chimps.

Lmao! Says the guy that thinks penguins are gay.

 

[Nosmo King]

I would hope that the Catholics would sell him a crucifix if for nothing other than their desire to expose him to the passion and love Christ suffered through to bring light, love and forgiveness to the world.

Excellent non-answer.

Dodge,dip,duck,dive,dodge.

You got the answer the question deserved.

You dodged an actual answer because the one answer you want to give makes you look like an asshat.

The question suggested asshatery.

The question is perfectly valid, and you refuse to answer it because you are a gutless coward.

You have now joined the ranks of posters I address as "bitch-tits"

I answered your question. You posed an extreme situation wholly unrelated to the topic. That Catholic book store is an arm of the Roman Catholic Church. Melissa's Sweet Cakes is not a church subsidized business. That Satanist was going to use that crucifix to serve his religious purposes. Those two women wanted a wedding cake.

Now, pose a better question and you'll get a better answer.

Meanwhile, stop with the Trumpian sixth grade insults and you'll get the respect one adult should give another.

 

[Katzndogz]

Can we have a collective "AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

In all seriousness, I am absolutely against anyone harassing these women, but they are the ones who went after the Klein's.

The hate keeps coming: Pain lingers for lesbian couple denied in Sweet Cakes case

It's just a cake, Laurel Bowman-Cryer used to tell her wife, Rachel. But three and a half years have passed, and the hate mail keeps coming.

Back in 2013, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa made headlines when they refused to make the lesbians' wedding cake. A state official, in a move that's redefined his political career, eventually ordered the bakers to pay $135,000.

The Bowman-Cryers have received thousands of Facebook messages, each one calling them fat or evil, the dumb lesbians who ruined those Christian bakers' lives.

As they waited for their daughter's school bus this May, Rachel's cell phone dinged with a new missive.

"I am buying up my ammo right now you filthy, ugly, disgusting, fat, stupid, cruel, anti-Christian piece of liberal scum," she read aloud. "I am getting ready for the war so I hope you have a good hiding place, you sick, disgusting, miserable, piece of degenerate lesbian scum."

The Bowman-Cryers say they never wanted the money, which remains locked in a government account. They say they never wanted a war.

For three and a half years, they have hidden, believing in time their names would disappear from the headlines. They didn't answer the phone. They declined hundreds of interviews, quit their jobs and stopped leaving the house.

Their silence has not protected them. As the Bowman-Cryers retreated, the fury over their case grew louder.

The bakers, Aaron and Melissa Klein, appealed their fines and hired former President George H.W. Bush's White House lawyer. They toured the country with presidential candidate Ted Cruz as the face of a new fight for business owners' religious freedom.

The legalization of same-sex marriage isn't the end of the story, the Kleins told crowds from Iowa to Washington, D.C. The government, they said, wants to force Christian business owners to help gay people marry. The solution, the Kleins warned receptive lawmakers, would be legislation protecting religious liberty. Arkansas, North Carolina and Mississippi have approved bills since then, curtailing the civil rights gay people fought to win.

The hate keeps coming: Pain lingers for lesbian couple denied in Sweet Cakes case

I hope they get harrassed to the point they commit suicide. Mess with people's livliehoods by government force....I have no pity for you.

Where's that Conservative love of justice here? You hope they commit suicide? Where's that Conservative love of human life we are constantly preached about?

All I see is that Conservative hatred for people other than themselves!

I think my point is justice wasn't served and that justice would be served with the dikes commiting suicide.

Normally I would call that over the top. In this case the example is necessary.

 

[Katzndogz]

Excellent non-answer.

Dodge,dip,duck,dive,dodge.

You got the answer the question deserved.

You dodged an actual answer because the one answer you want to give makes you look like an asshat.

The question suggested asshatery.

The question is perfectly valid, and you refuse to answer it because you are a gutless coward.

You have now joined the ranks of posters I address as "bitch-tits"

I answered your question. You posed an extreme situation wholly unrelated to the topic. That Catholic book store is an arm of the Roman Catholic Church. Melissa's Sweet Cakes is not a church subsidized business. That Satanist was going to use that crucifix to serve his religious purposes. Those two women wanted a wedding cake.

Now, pose a better question and you'll get a better answer.

Meanwhile, stop with the Trumpian sixth grade insults and you'll get the respect one adult should give another.

They wanted a wedding cake. What did they get? They did not get Melisssa to make them the cake. They had to get the cake elsewhere. They won a sum of money that they still don't have. For the last three and a half years and continuing the lesbos have had their lives made a misery. They each lost their job. They had to move and could not find a place. They live hand to mouth on what ever they can scrabble up.

While they certainly deserve everything they are getting, what is it that you believe they won?

 

[Nosmo King]

You got the answer the question deserved.

You dodged an actual answer because the one answer you want to give makes you look like an asshat.

The question suggested asshatery.

The question is perfectly valid, and you refuse to answer it because you are a gutless coward.

You have now joined the ranks of posters I address as "bitch-tits"

I answered your question. You posed an extreme situation wholly unrelated to the topic. That Catholic book store is an arm of the Roman Catholic Church. Melissa's Sweet Cakes is not a church subsidized business. That Satanist was going to use that crucifix to serve his religious purposes. Those two women wanted a wedding cake.

Now, pose a better question and you'll get a better answer.

Meanwhile, stop with the Trumpian sixth grade insults and you'll get the respect one adult should give another.

They wanted a wedding cake. What did they get? They did not get Melisssa to make them the cake. They had to get the cake elsewhere. They won a sum of money that they still don't have. For the last three and a half years and continuing the lesbos have had their lives made a misery. They each lost their job. They had to move and could not find a place. They live hand to mouth on what ever they can scrabble up.

While they certainly deserve everything they are getting, what is it that you believe they won?

Why on earth, in 2016 America can you possibly say they deserve to suffer while standing up for their rights?

What is it with you Conservative haters? Why do you think persecution is the right thing, the good thing, the American thing to do? Do you love America because you clearly hate Americans.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You got the answer the question deserved.

You dodged an actual answer because the one answer you want to give makes you look like an asshat.

The question suggested asshatery.

The question is perfectly valid, and you refuse to answer it because you are a gutless coward.

You have now joined the ranks of posters I address as "bitch-tits"

I answered your question. You posed an extreme situation wholly unrelated to the topic. That Catholic book store is an arm of the Roman Catholic Church. Melissa's Sweet Cakes is not a church subsidized business. That Satanist was going to use that crucifix to serve his religious purposes. Those two women wanted a wedding cake.

Now, pose a better question and you'll get a better answer.

Meanwhile, stop with the Trumpian sixth grade insults and you'll get the respect one adult should give another.

They wanted a wedding cake. What did they get? They did not get Melisssa to make them the cake. They had to get the cake elsewhere. They won a sum of money that they still don't have. For the last three and a half years and continuing the lesbos have had their lives made a misery. They each lost their job. They had to move and could not find a place. They live hand to mouth on what ever they can scrabble up.

While they certainly deserve everything they are getting, what is it that you believe they won?

There will be a lot of Melissas unless the fundies evolve.