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

[Faun]

First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I have no problem. I've been saying for years that gays should be allowed to marry; otherwise their equal protection was being violated. The U.S.S.C. decision proved I was right.

As far as differences between a married lesbian and straight male ... their gender.

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

Where is the discrimination? Both have access to locker rooms?

Separate but equal.

Yes indeed, I did love that, too bad.

I asked who, in your locker room example, is being discriminated against.

By your non-sequitur response, I can only conclude -- no one is.

Thanks!

 

[Faun]

Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.

And Syriously's nervous breakdown over the ramifications of his genderless society actually looks like continues.

Oh, all these arguments were first yours.....

Compelling state interest

Similarily Situated

And you are really this unprepared?

Now that's funny!

And Pop's meltdown continues.

But I applaud his efforts to gain access to the women's showers.

You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?

They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?

You crack me up Wytch.

For 40 years you've been allowed in locker/shower rooms of the gender you find the most attracted too. And I don't doubt you spend MORE THAN THE AVERAGE TIME IN THEM.

Do the straight women know you're in there simply to check them out?

Cheaper then lez porn, huh?

Locker rooms aren't available for whom you find attractive. WTF is wrong with you?

 

[OKTexas]

Time to appeal to the courts, the fags suffered no harm, they got their fucking cake elsewhere.

You are a bigoted hateful jackass.
You haven't a clue what harm schmucks like you cause, but I am certain you do care - you hope to hurt as deeply as you can.
I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!

Feel better?



Now explain why hurt feelings is worth $135,000. Should I get that much from you, after all you tried to hurt my feelings.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Time to appeal to the courts, the fags suffered no harm, they got their fucking cake elsewhere.

You are a bigoted hateful jackass.
You haven't a clue what harm schmucks like you cause, but I am certain you do care - you hope to hurt as deeply as you can.
I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!

Feel better?



Now explain why hurt feelings is worth $135,000. Should I get that much from you, after all you tried to hurt my feelings.

When you deny service to a protected class, you can expect to take it in the gut so, don't.

And don't start quoting Leviticus either. That costs you even more...

 

[OKTexas]

Time to appeal to the courts, the fags suffered no harm, they got their fucking cake elsewhere.

You are a bigoted hateful jackass.
You haven't a clue what harm schmucks like you cause, but I am certain you do care - you hope to hurt as deeply as you can.
I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!

Feel better?



Now explain why hurt feelings is worth $135,000. Should I get that much from you, after all you tried to hurt my feelings.

When you deny service to a protected class, you can expect to take it in the gut so, don't.

And don't start quoting Leviticus either. That costs you even more...

So now we're all slaves to the protected classes, ain't tyranny by the minority great?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Time to appeal to the courts, the fags suffered no harm, they got their fucking cake elsewhere.

You are a bigoted hateful jackass.
You haven't a clue what harm schmucks like you cause, but I am certain you do care - you hope to hurt as deeply as you can.
I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!

Feel better?



Now explain why hurt feelings is worth $135,000. Should I get that much from you, after all you tried to hurt my feelings.

When you deny service to a protected class, you can expect to take it in the gut so, don't.

And don't start quoting Leviticus either. That costs you even more...

So now we're all slaves to the protected classes, ain't tyranny by the minority great?

The slavery argument died, at the Supreme Court, 60 years ago. Time for you to drop it eh?

 

[OKTexas]

Time to appeal to the courts, the fags suffered no harm, they got their fucking cake elsewhere.

You are a bigoted hateful jackass.
You haven't a clue what harm schmucks like you cause, but I am certain you do care - you hope to hurt as deeply as you can.
I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!

Feel better?



Now explain why hurt feelings is worth $135,000. Should I get that much from you, after all you tried to hurt my feelings.

When you deny service to a protected class, you can expect to take it in the gut so, don't.

And don't start quoting Leviticus either. That costs you even more...

So now we're all slaves to the protected classes, ain't tyranny by the minority great?

The slavery argument died, at the Supreme Court, 60 years ago. Time for you to drop it eh?

What was old is new again.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You are a bigoted hateful jackass.
You haven't a clue what harm schmucks like you cause, but I am certain you do care - you hope to hurt as deeply as you can.
I've had it with trying to be polite and engage intelligently with venomous garbage.
What trash you are!

Feel better?



Now explain why hurt feelings is worth $135,000. Should I get that much from you, after all you tried to hurt my feelings.

When you deny service to a protected class, you can expect to take it in the gut so, don't.

And don't start quoting Leviticus either. That costs you even more...

So now we're all slaves to the protected classes, ain't tyranny by the minority great?

The slavery argument died, at the Supreme Court, 60 years ago. Time for you to drop it eh?

What was old is new again.

Not in this case as the same idea has died time and again there. Bake the stupid cake, and get one with your life.

 

[Pop23]

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I have no problem. I've been saying for years that gays should be allowed to marry; otherwise their equal protection was being violated. The U.S.S.C. decision proved I was right.

As far as differences between a married lesbian and straight male ... their gender.

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

Where is the discrimination? Both have access to locker rooms?

Separate but equal.

Yes indeed, I did love that, too bad.

I asked who, in your locker room example, is being discriminated against.

By your non-sequitur response, I can only conclude -- no one is.

Thanks!

Jesus, how many times did you need that answered.

A married lesbian couple may enter a room together, the straight couple cannot. In this example the straight couple is being discriminated against and the male could be arrested for a sex offense!

That is unless, he claims to be TRANSGENDER.

Seriously folks, you can't make this stuff up.

 

[Pop23]

And Syriously's nervous breakdown over the ramifications of his genderless society actually looks like continues.

Oh, all these arguments were first yours.....

Compelling state interest

Similarily Situated

And you are really this unprepared?

Now that's funny!

And Pop's meltdown continues.

But I applaud his efforts to gain access to the women's showers.

You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?

They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?

You crack me up Wytch.

For 40 years you've been allowed in locker/shower rooms of the gender you find the most attracted too. And I don't doubt you spend MORE THAN THE AVERAGE TIME IN THEM.

Do the straight women know you're in there simply to check them out?

Cheaper then lez porn, huh?

Locker rooms aren't available for whom you find attractive. WTF is wrong with you?

They are to lesbians and gay males!

Nice try (not really)

 

[Skylar]

But now she can, besides this is about Public Acommodations.

Both couples are married, both should be accommodated equally.

They are accommodated equally. Remember, no court, no state, no legal authority has ever found that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws. Rendering your assertion more hapless nonsense that has no reflection in reality.

Predicting nothing, nor having the slightest relevance to any law. With your record of failure remaining perfect.

I mean, the law of averages alone would mandate that eventually you'd get something right. Yet you somehow always find a way to be wrong every single time. With your predictions and legal interpretations of everything from incest to poly marriage to gendered bathrooms demonstrated to be pseudo-legal gibberish by history.

The lesbian couple used the "similar situated" argument successfully to win the right to marry.

Says who? Remembering of course that you citing yourself is meaningless babble.

Are you now saying that gender really does matter?

You cannot claim similarity when it suits you, then claim you are not when it suits your fancy.

The lesbian is allowed in the locker room with the wife, who the lesbian is sexually attracted to, but the husband (who the lesbian claims she is similar to) is not?

Why? Some kind of MORALITY play?

Hmmmmmm, sounds kinda familiar?

WTF is wrong with you? The primary purposes of a locker room is to shower or get changed. Everyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference has access to that. The primary purpose of marriage is to make a life long commitment to the person you love. Homosexuals were denied that right.

Sorry, you argue seperate but equal again.

Everyone has access to cake also

The baker never denied baking them "a" cake.

A bathroom isn't public business. Rendering your argument laughably pseudo-legal gibberish. As PA laws apply only to business. And what service is someone denied by gendered bathrooms? Nothing.

Remember, no court, no state, no legal authority has ever found that gendered bathrooms violate PA laws. Rendering your assertion more hapless nonsense that has no reflection in reality.

Predicting nothing, nor having the slightest relevance to any law. With your record of failure remaining perfect.

I mean, the law of averages alone would mandate that eventually you'd get something right. Yet you somehow always find a way to be wrong every single time. With your predictions and legal interpretations of everything from incest to poly marriage to gendered bathrooms demonstrated to be meaningless babble by history.

Try building a business without restrooms dummy, the government will deny you a permit! That makes it part of access laws.

Bathrooms aren't a good or service being sold to anyone. PA laws apply only to public business. Which might explain why nothing you've predicted, nor any of your pseudo-legal gibberish has ever had the slightest relevance to the real world.

Everything you've ever predicted as been wrong. On essentially any topic I've ever seen discussed. Incest marriage, same sex marriage, bathrooms, PA laws, everything. Your record of failure has been perfect.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

And Pop's meltdown continues.

But I applaud his efforts to gain access to the women's showers.

You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?

They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?

You crack me up Wytch.

For 40 years you've been allowed in locker/shower rooms of the gender you find the most attracted too. And I don't doubt you spend MORE THAN THE AVERAGE TIME IN THEM.

Do the straight women know you're in there simply to check them out?

Cheaper then lez porn, huh?

Locker rooms aren't available for whom you find attractive. WTF is wrong with you?

They are to lesbians and gay males!

Nice try (not really)

Your criteria of bathroom use is irrelevant. They aren't designated per sexual orientation. But per gender.

Making all of your babble about sexual orientation more meaningless gibberish. You might as well be citing favorite color for as much relevance as your claims have to actual law or any real world outcome.

Do you have anything else? Or is this it?

 

[OKTexas]

Feel better?



Now explain why hurt feelings is worth $135,000. Should I get that much from you, after all you tried to hurt my feelings.

When you deny service to a protected class, you can expect to take it in the gut so, don't.

And don't start quoting Leviticus either. That costs you even more...

So now we're all slaves to the protected classes, ain't tyranny by the minority great?

The slavery argument died, at the Supreme Court, 60 years ago. Time for you to drop it eh?

What was old is new again.

Not in this case as the same idea has died time and again there. Bake the stupid cake, and get one with your life.

There were about 360 other bakeries in the area, why did the faghadist pick that one? Did they have previous knowledge they would likely be refused? Were they just looking for a payday? Did anyone ask them under oath?

You got any answers to these? Don't tell me these questions are irrelevant either because they would be relevant do determining this so called harm.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When you deny service to a protected class, you can expect to take it in the gut so, don't.

And don't start quoting Leviticus either. That costs you even more...

So now we're all slaves to the protected classes, ain't tyranny by the minority great?

The slavery argument died, at the Supreme Court, 60 years ago. Time for you to drop it eh?

What was old is new again.

Not in this case as the same idea has died time and again there. Bake the stupid cake, and get one with your life.

There were about 360 other bakeries in the area, why did the faghadist pick that one? Did they have previous knowledge they would likely be refused? Were they just looking for a payday? Did anyone ask them under oath?

You got any answers to these? Don't tell me these questions are irrelevant either because they would be relevant do determining this so called harm.

They liked the wedding cake they bought there before, for the wedding of one of the mothers. And the payday the state provided because the vendor broke the law.

 

[Skylar]

Ok.. let's have this argument again, but you're dead wrong. The action isn't being prohibited. Businesses can discriminate against anyone any time they want if they don't say why. It's the expression of a prohibited reason that makes the denial of service illegal.

You're simply wrong. That an action is motivated by a thought doesn't mean its the thought that is being regulated. If such were the case then premediated murder would be 'thought control' by your standards. As would any action motivated by any thought. Your entire basis of argument is nonsense. Thoughts and actions aren't the same. And regulating one isn't 'controlling' the other.

You can think whatever you'd like. But when those thoughts motivate action, that's when the regulation can apply.

Denying the cake based on sexual orientation was an action. And regulating action is well within the authority of the govenrment. Especially State governments on issues of intra state commerce. Over which they clearly have jurisdiction.

To put it another way, discriminating isn't illegal. Discriminating for the wrong reasons is what's illegal.

Just as killing isn't illegal. Only killing for the wrong reasons. What's your point? That state government isn't allowed to set criteria for the regulation of behavior?

You're obviously wrong again. Of course they can.

 

[OKTexas]

So now we're all slaves to the protected classes, ain't tyranny by the minority great?

The slavery argument died, at the Supreme Court, 60 years ago. Time for you to drop it eh?

What was old is new again.

Not in this case as the same idea has died time and again there. Bake the stupid cake, and get one with your life.

There were about 360 other bakeries in the area, why did the faghadist pick that one? Did they have previous knowledge they would likely be refused? Were they just looking for a payday? Did anyone ask them under oath?

You got any answers to these? Don't tell me these questions are irrelevant either because they would be relevant do determining this so called harm.

They liked the wedding cake they bought there before, for the wedding of one of the mothers. And the payday the state provided because the vendor broke the law.

That answers one question, you gonna try the rest?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The slavery argument died, at the Supreme Court, 60 years ago. Time for you to drop it eh?

What was old is new again.

Not in this case as the same idea has died time and again there. Bake the stupid cake, and get one with your life.

There were about 360 other bakeries in the area, why did the faghadist pick that one? Did they have previous knowledge they would likely be refused? Were they just looking for a payday? Did anyone ask them under oath?

You got any answers to these? Don't tell me these questions are irrelevant either because they would be relevant do determining this so called harm.

They liked the wedding cake they bought there before, for the wedding of one of the mothers. And the payday the state provided because the vendor broke the law.

That answers one question, you gonna try the rest?

No need, that answers all. It's in the public record, look it up for yourself.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Almost Everything You ve Heard About The Anti-Gay Sweet Cakes Wedding Cake Case Is Probably Wrong - The New Civil Rights Movement

 

[OKTexas]

What was old is new again.

Not in this case as the same idea has died time and again there. Bake the stupid cake, and get one with your life.

There were about 360 other bakeries in the area, why did the faghadist pick that one? Did they have previous knowledge they would likely be refused? Were they just looking for a payday? Did anyone ask them under oath?

You got any answers to these? Don't tell me these questions are irrelevant either because they would be relevant do determining this so called harm.

They liked the wedding cake they bought there before, for the wedding of one of the mothers. And the payday the state provided because the vendor broke the law.

That answers one question, you gonna try the rest?

No need, that answers all. It's in the public record, look it up for yourself.

So you don't know, no shame in that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Not in this case as the same idea has died time and again there. Bake the stupid cake, and get one with your life.

There were about 360 other bakeries in the area, why did the faghadist pick that one? Did they have previous knowledge they would likely be refused? Were they just looking for a payday? Did anyone ask them under oath?

You got any answers to these? Don't tell me these questions are irrelevant either because they would be relevant do determining this so called harm.

They liked the wedding cake they bought there before, for the wedding of one of the mothers. And the payday the state provided because the vendor broke the law.

That answers one question, you gonna try the rest?

No need, that answers all. It's in the public record, look it up for yourself.

So you don't know, no shame in that.

Since this was never in court, your questions matter not.