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

[Pop23]

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?

Read the oregon PA law.

Yup. Have you? If so, explain how a woman's locker room isn't a 'full and equal accommodation'.

And then explain why woman's locker room has never been found to be a violation of Oregon PA laws by any legal authority in Oregon. Or any other state. What do they know that you don't?

Read the USSC ruling. I am now the same as a lesbian.

I have. Explain how a woman's locker-room isn't a 'full and equal accommodation'.

You can't. Which is why you're avoiding the question. Its not going away. Either demonstrate in the law that a woman's locker-room isn't a 'full and equal accommodation', or admit you can't.

Its one or the other.

It's already starting:

Woman Is Suing Planet Fitness Over Locker Room Policy The Daily Caller

See your crap about showers/lockers being gender specific for a reason is simply crap.

That's not PA laws. You've just moved your goal posts.

If your PA law argument had merit you wouldn't have had to run.

You do realize this is just the beginning, right?

Do you think current PA laws existed before, or after people started complaining and filed individual suits?

You are naive.

 

[Pop23]

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?

See Pops, I'm intentionally funny. You on the other hand, don't even realize how hysterical you are. That's okay though...that kinda makes it even funnier.

No Pops I don't spend more time in a public restroom than is absolutely necessary. I evacuate, I wash my hands with soap and water and I leave. Don't you?

As for showers? I've not showered with more than just my spouse in our private shower since boot camp. Have you ever been to boot camp, Pops? You get about 5 minutes in the shower...which leaves time to shower.

This has been explained to you before, Pops. Try reading it this time.

So let's examine the issue in a rational way. The cultural norm in this country has always been: men shower with men, and women shower with women. It is unusual, even for opposite sex couples, married or otherwise, to shower together as a part of normal, daily life (excepting when it's part of sexual play). This means that it's quite rare for men to shower with women, but extremely common for men to shower with other men, and women to shower with other women. Thus gay men have been showering with straight men all along; and lesbians have been showering with straight women. To a gay man or woman, it's not a unique situation to shower with someone of the same gender. Consequently, instances of ogling, misbehavior and harassment are relatively rare. Reducing this fact to a sound bite, the gay servicemember would say, "Been there, done that, no big deal."

For a heterosexual man, however, showering with a woman would be considered a rare treat, indeed. Straight men can readily identify their own sexual interest in that situation and thus project that interest onto gay guys. After all, the thinking goes, men are men. Thus the heterosexual serviceman assumes that the gay serviceman will have the same interest in him as he would in a woman in the shower. He doesn't consider the reality of the situation that gay men have been in showers with other men their whole lives and don't necessarily find it titillating. Even more to the point, the heterosexual serviceman has likely been in the shower with gay guys, too, both in the military and before he joined the military. If he understands DADT (which few do), he would know both the law and DoD regulations say the gay guy can be in the shower with him. They not only have been in the shower with him, but there hasn't been a problem.
​

Shower at home Pops.

Bake your own damn cake?

See how that works?

Then there's this.

Woman Is Suing Planet Fitness Over Locker Room Policy The Daily Caller

Maybe straights should just all shower at home?

Funny, YOU wanted the USSC to make same sex couples declared similarily situated, now that they did, you want them NOT considered that way?

You are a hoot Wytch, simply a hoot.

I see how your mind works, Poppy, but you obviously don't see how life and the law works. You are not being denied public accommodation. You are not denied access to a facility. You can pee and shower. No laws have been broken.

If you would like to petition a private company for gender neutral bathrooms, go for it. Heck sweetie pie, you can even sue. Best of luck.

If you actually were able to understand how my mind works, you'd improve yourself, since you can't, you won't.

 

[ChrisL]

And now, stay tuned for some more paranoid conspiracy theories from some of the crazy "religious" folks!!!

 

[ChrisL]

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?

See Pops, I'm intentionally funny. You on the other hand, don't even realize how hysterical you are. That's okay though...that kinda makes it even funnier.

No Pops I don't spend more time in a public restroom than is absolutely necessary. I evacuate, I wash my hands with soap and water and I leave. Don't you?

As for showers? I've not showered with more than just my spouse in our private shower since boot camp. Have you ever been to boot camp, Pops? You get about 5 minutes in the shower...which leaves time to shower.

This has been explained to you before, Pops. Try reading it this time.

So let's examine the issue in a rational way. The cultural norm in this country has always been: men shower with men, and women shower with women. It is unusual, even for opposite sex couples, married or otherwise, to shower together as a part of normal, daily life (excepting when it's part of sexual play). This means that it's quite rare for men to shower with women, but extremely common for men to shower with other men, and women to shower with other women. Thus gay men have been showering with straight men all along; and lesbians have been showering with straight women. To a gay man or woman, it's not a unique situation to shower with someone of the same gender. Consequently, instances of ogling, misbehavior and harassment are relatively rare. Reducing this fact to a sound bite, the gay servicemember would say, "Been there, done that, no big deal."

For a heterosexual man, however, showering with a woman would be considered a rare treat, indeed. Straight men can readily identify their own sexual interest in that situation and thus project that interest onto gay guys. After all, the thinking goes, men are men. Thus the heterosexual serviceman assumes that the gay serviceman will have the same interest in him as he would in a woman in the shower. He doesn't consider the reality of the situation that gay men have been in showers with other men their whole lives and don't necessarily find it titillating. Even more to the point, the heterosexual serviceman has likely been in the shower with gay guys, too, both in the military and before he joined the military. If he understands DADT (which few do), he would know both the law and DoD regulations say the gay guy can be in the shower with him. They not only have been in the shower with him, but there hasn't been a problem.
​

Shower at home Pops.

Bake your own damn cake?

See how that works?

Then there's this.

Woman Is Suing Planet Fitness Over Locker Room Policy The Daily Caller

Maybe straights should just all shower at home?

Funny, YOU wanted the USSC to make same sex couples declared similarily situated, now that they did, you want them NOT considered that way?

You are a hoot Wytch, simply a hoot.

I see how your mind works, Poppy, but you obviously don't see how life and the law works. You are not being denied public accommodation. You are not denied access to a facility. You can pee and shower. No laws have been broken.

If you would like to petition a private company for gender neutral bathrooms, go for it. Heck sweetie pie, you can even sue. Best of luck.

If you actually were able to understand how my mind works, you'd improve yourself, since you can't, you won't.

That's a tall order, poppy!

 

[Faun]

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?

Read the oregon PA law. You are not allowed to discriminate based on sex or sexual orientation. Straight is an orientation.

And they are not being discriminated against. They have the same access to lock rooms.

 

[Faun]

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.

As someone else already pointed out to you -- locker rooms are available for individual use, not couples' use. So there is still no discrimination no matter how hard you try to invent one -- everyone, regardless of gender, race, religion, and sexual preference has access to the locker room.

Until recently, gays did not have access to marry the person they love; which is the main purpose of marriage.

So a couple does not equal two individuals?

Non-sequitur. Next....

 

[Pop23]

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?

Read the oregon PA law. You are not allowed to discriminate based on sex or sexual orientation. Straight is an orientation.

And they are not being discriminated against. They have the same access to lock rooms.

So having access to a separate but equal Civil Marriage was actually constitutional then.

Who's side are you on?

 

[Pop23]

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.

As someone else already pointed out to you -- locker rooms are available for individual use, not couples' use. So there is still no discrimination no matter how hard you try to invent one -- everyone, regardless of gender, race, religion, and sexual preference has access to the locker room.

Until recently, gays did not have access to marry the person they love; which is the main purpose of marriage.

So a couple does not equal two individuals?

Non-sequitur. Next....

Just two hard for you to count to two?

Got it.

 

[Pop23]

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?

See Pops, I'm intentionally funny. You on the other hand, don't even realize how hysterical you are. That's okay though...that kinda makes it even funnier.

No Pops I don't spend more time in a public restroom than is absolutely necessary. I evacuate, I wash my hands with soap and water and I leave. Don't you?

As for showers? I've not showered with more than just my spouse in our private shower since boot camp. Have you ever been to boot camp, Pops? You get about 5 minutes in the shower...which leaves time to shower.

This has been explained to you before, Pops. Try reading it this time.

So let's examine the issue in a rational way. The cultural norm in this country has always been: men shower with men, and women shower with women. It is unusual, even for opposite sex couples, married or otherwise, to shower together as a part of normal, daily life (excepting when it's part of sexual play). This means that it's quite rare for men to shower with women, but extremely common for men to shower with other men, and women to shower with other women. Thus gay men have been showering with straight men all along; and lesbians have been showering with straight women. To a gay man or woman, it's not a unique situation to shower with someone of the same gender. Consequently, instances of ogling, misbehavior and harassment are relatively rare. Reducing this fact to a sound bite, the gay servicemember would say, "Been there, done that, no big deal."

For a heterosexual man, however, showering with a woman would be considered a rare treat, indeed. Straight men can readily identify their own sexual interest in that situation and thus project that interest onto gay guys. After all, the thinking goes, men are men. Thus the heterosexual serviceman assumes that the gay serviceman will have the same interest in him as he would in a woman in the shower. He doesn't consider the reality of the situation that gay men have been in showers with other men their whole lives and don't necessarily find it titillating. Even more to the point, the heterosexual serviceman has likely been in the shower with gay guys, too, both in the military and before he joined the military. If he understands DADT (which few do), he would know both the law and DoD regulations say the gay guy can be in the shower with him. They not only have been in the shower with him, but there hasn't been a problem.
​

Shower at home Pops.

Bake your own damn cake?

See how that works?

Then there's this.

Woman Is Suing Planet Fitness Over Locker Room Policy The Daily Caller

Maybe straights should just all shower at home?

Funny, YOU wanted the USSC to make same sex couples declared similarily situated, now that they did, you want them NOT considered that way?

You are a hoot Wytch, simply a hoot.

I see how your mind works, Poppy, but you obviously don't see how life and the law works. You are not being denied public accommodation. You are not denied access to a facility. You can pee and shower. No laws have been broken.

If you would like to petition a private company for gender neutral bathrooms, go for it. Heck sweetie pie, you can even sue. Best of luck.

If you actually were able to understand how my mind works, you'd improve yourself, since you can't, you won't.

That's a tall order, poppy!

I know, right?

I can figure out what sex I was meant to sleep with while some can't.

 

[Faun]

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?

Read the oregon PA law. You are not allowed to discriminate based on sex or sexual orientation. Straight is an orientation.

And they are not being discriminated against. They have the same access to lock rooms.

So having access to a separate but equal Civil Marriage was actually constitutional then.

Who's side are you on?

Can you stay focused for more than 2 seconds? You said some were being discriminated against. When it's pointed out to you that's false since no one is being discriminated against, you shift to separate but equal.

Meanwhile, there remains no discrimination in your silly example. Everyone has access to those same locker rooms regardless of their race, religion, gender, or sexual preference.

And again, compare that to SSM, where until recently, gays were denied access to their right to marry the person they love.

 

[Faun]

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.

As someone else already pointed out to you -- locker rooms are available for individual use, not couples' use. So there is still no discrimination no matter how hard you try to invent one -- everyone, regardless of gender, race, religion, and sexual preference has access to the locker room.

Until recently, gays did not have access to marry the person they love; which is the main purpose of marriage.

So a couple does not equal two individuals?

Non-sequitur. Next....

Just two hard for you to count to two?

Got it.

Of course not. A couple has nothing to do with a locker room. Locker rooms do not exist to accommodate couples. That's not their purpose. Do you even realize you're trying to alter the purpose of a locker room just to make a false argument? That would be like complaining the baker refused to cook a steak for the lesbian couple.

 

[OKTexas]

There were about 360 other bakeries in the area, why did the faghadist pick that one?

Because it was the same shop that had provide the wedding cake a couple of years earlier for one of the couples mother.

Did they have previous knowledge they would likely be refused?

No, they were looking for a wedding cake.

Were they just looking for a payday?

No, they were looking for a wedding cake. Not to be called an abomination.

Did anyone ask them under oath?

Yes

You got any answers to these?

Yes, they are part of the court record.

Don't tell me these questions are irrelevant either because they would be relevant do determining this so called harm.

The answers which you seek are actually in the court record and were agreed to by the Kleins as they were uncontested.


>>>>

You got a link?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I can figure out what sex I was meant to sleep with while some can't.

Pretty much everyone can, including those who sleep with both..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There were about 360 other bakeries in the area, why did the faghadist pick that one?

Because it was the same shop that had provide the wedding cake a couple of years earlier for one of the couples mother.

Did they have previous knowledge they would likely be refused?

No, they were looking for a wedding cake.

Were they just looking for a payday?

No, they were looking for a wedding cake. Not to be called an abomination.

Did anyone ask them under oath?

Yes

You got any answers to these?

Yes, they are part of the court record.

Don't tell me these questions are irrelevant either because they would be relevant do determining this so called harm.

The answers which you seek are actually in the court record and were agreed to by the Kleins as they were uncontested.


>>>>

You got a link?

Read my link from #2567.

 

[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.

Have you tried reading the particulars of the case?

In January 2013, when Laurel Bowman and Rachel Cryer planned to marry, they selected a bakery they had done business with before: Sweet Cakes by Melissa. The couple had no idea what horrible anti-gay discrimination and acrimony the bakery owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, had in store for them — simply because they are gay.[...]

Cryer wanted a grand wedding. Her mother came to town, and they visited a local bridal show where they noticed the Sweet Cakes by Melissa booth. They'd ordered from Melissa's Sweet Cakes once before — for Cryer's mother's wedding — and they enjoyed it. (So, obviously they do cakes for divorcees weddings. Clearly a biblical sin) So, they scheduled a Sweet Cake tasting for the following day.

When Cryer and her mother arrived at Sweet Cakes by Melissa, Aaron Klein ushered them to his office, where he then asked for the names of the bride and groom. Told there would be two brides, he refused service right then and there. "I believe I have wasted your time," he claims to have said. "We do not do cakes for same-sex weddings."

Crying and apologizing to her mother, who Cryer felt she'd deeply embarrassed, she headed to the car. A few moments later, her mother returned to the bakery to defend her daughter. She reasoned with Aaron Klein, saying that she'd once felt as he did, but after having two gay children, her "truth had changed."

In response, Aaron Klein referenced a Bible verse from Leviticus — which in context, he'd cited perniciously — to call the Bowman-Cryer family "abominations," which he denies.

When they arrived back home, Cryer retired to bed, distraught and questioning nearly everything. Bowman tried to console her, without success. Bowman always viewed herself as Cryer's protector, and wondered if a wedding was a good idea if it came with such heavy cost to her family's emotional well being. One of their kids became upset amidst the emotional tumult.

This was the second time they'd faced discrimination, just trying to plan a wedding as a gay couple. Determined in defending her fiancé and trying to make the world a better place, Bowman filed a consumer complaint with the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ).

"In november of 2011 my fiancé and I purchased a wedding cake from this establishment for her mother's wedding. We spent 250. When we decided to get married ourselves chose to back and purchase a second cake. Today, January 17, 2013, we went for our cake tasting. When asked for a grooms name my soon to be mother in law informed them of my name. The owner then proceeded to say we were abominations unto the lord and refused to make another cake for us despite having already paid 250 once and having done business in the past. We were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiancé reduced to tears. This is absolutely unacceptable."
​

Almost Everything You've Heard About The Anti-Gay Sweet Cakes Wedding Cake Case Is (Probably) Wrong

Ok, so they lied, if you read your link, it was only the mother in the room when he quoted the bible, not the fagahdist, she had already gone to the car. Also the statement said the two faghadist were denied and called abominations, when only the mother was in the room. So I guess perjury is ok when it's a faghadist doing it.

 

[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.

Have you tried reading the particulars of the case?

In January 2013, when Laurel Bowman and Rachel Cryer planned to marry, they selected a bakery they had done business with before: Sweet Cakes by Melissa. The couple had no idea what horrible anti-gay discrimination and acrimony the bakery owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, had in store for them — simply because they are gay.[...]

Cryer wanted a grand wedding. Her mother came to town, and they visited a local bridal show where they noticed the Sweet Cakes by Melissa booth. They'd ordered from Melissa's Sweet Cakes once before — for Cryer's mother's wedding — and they enjoyed it. (So, obviously they do cakes for divorcees weddings. Clearly a biblical sin) So, they scheduled a Sweet Cake tasting for the following day.

When Cryer and her mother arrived at Sweet Cakes by Melissa, Aaron Klein ushered them to his office, where he then asked for the names of the bride and groom. Told there would be two brides, he refused service right then and there. "I believe I have wasted your time," he claims to have said. "We do not do cakes for same-sex weddings."

Crying and apologizing to her mother, who Cryer felt she'd deeply embarrassed, she headed to the car. A few moments later, her mother returned to the bakery to defend her daughter. She reasoned with Aaron Klein, saying that she'd once felt as he did, but after having two gay children, her "truth had changed."

In response, Aaron Klein referenced a Bible verse from Leviticus — which in context, he'd cited perniciously — to call the Bowman-Cryer family "abominations," which he denies.

When they arrived back home, Cryer retired to bed, distraught and questioning nearly everything. Bowman tried to console her, without success. Bowman always viewed herself as Cryer's protector, and wondered if a wedding was a good idea if it came with such heavy cost to her family's emotional well being. One of their kids became upset amidst the emotional tumult.

This was the second time they'd faced discrimination, just trying to plan a wedding as a gay couple. Determined in defending her fiancé and trying to make the world a better place, Bowman filed a consumer complaint with the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ).

"In november of 2011 my fiancé and I purchased a wedding cake from this establishment for her mother's wedding. We spent 250. When we decided to get married ourselves chose to back and purchase a second cake. Today, January 17, 2013, we went for our cake tasting. When asked for a grooms name my soon to be mother in law informed them of my name. The owner then proceeded to say we were abominations unto the lord and refused to make another cake for us despite having already paid 250 once and having done business in the past. We were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiancé reduced to tears. This is absolutely unacceptable."
​

Almost Everything You've Heard About The Anti-Gay Sweet Cakes Wedding Cake Case Is (Probably) Wrong

Ok, so they lied, if you read your link, it was only the mother in the room when he quoted the bible, not the fagahdist, she had already gone to the car. Also the statement said the two faghadist were denied and called abominations, when only the mother was in the room. So I guess perjury is ok when it's a faghadist doing it.

If the complaint reads correctly, and I'm sure that it does, there is no perjury. If you can't deal with facts don't ask for them. You are acting like a child...

 

[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.

Poor baby!
Take it to court.
Of course my comment was in response to your use of the word "fags" as demeaning epithet. So, who was it that first slung poison arrows with specific intent to injure?
I only stated fact. You deliberately intended to devalue and dehumanize an entire class of people.

Bull shit, only a fag couple that set out to destroy another couple over a cake, when there were more than 300 other bakeries to chose from. The fags didn't care about the cake, they were pushing an agenda. Only really small, pathetic people do that kind of crap. adults would have moved on.

Would you have said the same thing about lunch counters and public accommodation in the 60s?
Allowing discrimination in any situation sets a precedent for acceptability. Challenging discrimination prevents proliferation.

False comparison. Genetics determine the amount of melanin in the skin, there is no proven genetic link for being gay, it is determined by actions and preferences.

 

[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.

Have you tried reading the particulars of the case?

In January 2013, when Laurel Bowman and Rachel Cryer planned to marry, they selected a bakery they had done business with before: Sweet Cakes by Melissa. The couple had no idea what horrible anti-gay discrimination and acrimony the bakery owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, had in store for them — simply because they are gay.[...]

Cryer wanted a grand wedding. Her mother came to town, and they visited a local bridal show where they noticed the Sweet Cakes by Melissa booth. They'd ordered from Melissa's Sweet Cakes once before — for Cryer's mother's wedding — and they enjoyed it. (So, obviously they do cakes for divorcees weddings. Clearly a biblical sin) So, they scheduled a Sweet Cake tasting for the following day.

When Cryer and her mother arrived at Sweet Cakes by Melissa, Aaron Klein ushered them to his office, where he then asked for the names of the bride and groom. Told there would be two brides, he refused service right then and there. "I believe I have wasted your time," he claims to have said. "We do not do cakes for same-sex weddings."

Crying and apologizing to her mother, who Cryer felt she'd deeply embarrassed, she headed to the car. A few moments later, her mother returned to the bakery to defend her daughter. She reasoned with Aaron Klein, saying that she'd once felt as he did, but after having two gay children, her "truth had changed."

In response, Aaron Klein referenced a Bible verse from Leviticus — which in context, he'd cited perniciously — to call the Bowman-Cryer family "abominations," which he denies.

When they arrived back home, Cryer retired to bed, distraught and questioning nearly everything. Bowman tried to console her, without success. Bowman always viewed herself as Cryer's protector, and wondered if a wedding was a good idea if it came with such heavy cost to her family's emotional well being. One of their kids became upset amidst the emotional tumult.

This was the second time they'd faced discrimination, just trying to plan a wedding as a gay couple. Determined in defending her fiancé and trying to make the world a better place, Bowman filed a consumer complaint with the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ).

"In november of 2011 my fiancé and I purchased a wedding cake from this establishment for her mother's wedding. We spent 250. When we decided to get married ourselves chose to back and purchase a second cake. Today, January 17, 2013, we went for our cake tasting. When asked for a grooms name my soon to be mother in law informed them of my name. The owner then proceeded to say we were abominations unto the lord and refused to make another cake for us despite having already paid 250 once and having done business in the past. We were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiancé reduced to tears. This is absolutely unacceptable."
​

Almost Everything You've Heard About The Anti-Gay Sweet Cakes Wedding Cake Case Is (Probably) Wrong

Ok, so they lied, if you read your link, it was only the mother in the room when he quoted the bible, not the fagahdist, she had already gone to the car. Also the statement said the two faghadist were denied and called abominations, when only the mother was in the room. So I guess perjury is ok when it's a faghadist doing it.

If the complaint reads correctly, and I'm sure that it does, there is no perjury. If you can't deal with facts don't ask for them. You are acting like a child...

From the link:

When Cryer and her mother arrived at Sweet Cakes by Melissa, Aaron Klein ushered them to his office, where he then asked for the names of the bride and groom. Told there would be two brides, he refused service right then and there. "I believe I have wasted your time," he claims to have said. "We do not do cakes for same-sex weddings."

Crying and apologizing to her mother, who Cryer felt she'd deeply embarrassed, she headed to the car. A few moments later, her mother returned to the bakery to defend her daughter. She reasoned with Aaron Klein, saying that she'd once felt as he did, but after having two gay children, her "truth had changed."

"In november of 2011 my fiancé and I purchased a wedding cake from this establishment for her mother's wedding. We spent 250. When we decided to get married ourselves chose to back and purchase a second cake. Today, January 17, 2013, we went for our cake tasting. When asked for a grooms name my soon to be mother in law informed them of my name. The owner then proceeded to say we were abominations unto the lord and refused to make another cake for us despite having already paid 250 once and having done business in the past. We were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiancé reduced to tears. This is absolutely unacceptable."

The statement was written from Bowmans perspective in the first person and she wasn't even there. That is perjury.

 

[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.

Have you tried reading the particulars of the case?

In January 2013, when Laurel Bowman and Rachel Cryer planned to marry, they selected a bakery they had done business with before: Sweet Cakes by Melissa. The couple had no idea what horrible anti-gay discrimination and acrimony the bakery owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, had in store for them — simply because they are gay.[...]

Cryer wanted a grand wedding. Her mother came to town, and they visited a local bridal show where they noticed the Sweet Cakes by Melissa booth. They'd ordered from Melissa's Sweet Cakes once before — for Cryer's mother's wedding — and they enjoyed it. (So, obviously they do cakes for divorcees weddings. Clearly a biblical sin) So, they scheduled a Sweet Cake tasting for the following day.

When Cryer and her mother arrived at Sweet Cakes by Melissa, Aaron Klein ushered them to his office, where he then asked for the names of the bride and groom. Told there would be two brides, he refused service right then and there. "I believe I have wasted your time," he claims to have said. "We do not do cakes for same-sex weddings."

Crying and apologizing to her mother, who Cryer felt she'd deeply embarrassed, she headed to the car. A few moments later, her mother returned to the bakery to defend her daughter. She reasoned with Aaron Klein, saying that she'd once felt as he did, but after having two gay children, her "truth had changed."

In response, Aaron Klein referenced a Bible verse from Leviticus — which in context, he'd cited perniciously — to call the Bowman-Cryer family "abominations," which he denies.

When they arrived back home, Cryer retired to bed, distraught and questioning nearly everything. Bowman tried to console her, without success. Bowman always viewed herself as Cryer's protector, and wondered if a wedding was a good idea if it came with such heavy cost to her family's emotional well being. One of their kids became upset amidst the emotional tumult.

This was the second time they'd faced discrimination, just trying to plan a wedding as a gay couple. Determined in defending her fiancé and trying to make the world a better place, Bowman filed a consumer complaint with the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ).

"In november of 2011 my fiancé and I purchased a wedding cake from this establishment for her mother's wedding. We spent 250. When we decided to get married ourselves chose to back and purchase a second cake. Today, January 17, 2013, we went for our cake tasting. When asked for a grooms name my soon to be mother in law informed them of my name. The owner then proceeded to say we were abominations unto the lord and refused to make another cake for us despite having already paid 250 once and having done business in the past. We were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiancé reduced to tears. This is absolutely unacceptable."
​

Almost Everything You've Heard About The Anti-Gay Sweet Cakes Wedding Cake Case Is (Probably) Wrong

Ok, so they lied, if you read your link, it was only the mother in the room when he quoted the bible, not the fagahdist, she had already gone to the car. Also the statement said the two faghadist were denied and called abominations, when only the mother was in the room. So I guess perjury is ok when it's a faghadist doing it.

If the complaint reads correctly, and I'm sure that it does, there is no perjury. If you can't deal with facts don't ask for them. You are acting like a child...

From the link:

When Cryer and her mother arrived at Sweet Cakes by Melissa, Aaron Klein ushered them to his office, where he then asked for the names of the bride and groom. Told there would be two brides, he refused service right then and there. "I believe I have wasted your time," he claims to have said. "We do not do cakes for same-sex weddings."

Crying and apologizing to her mother, who Cryer felt she'd deeply embarrassed, she headed to the car. A few moments later, her mother returned to the bakery to defend her daughter. She reasoned with Aaron Klein, saying that she'd once felt as he did, but after having two gay children, her "truth had changed."

"In november of 2011 my fiancé and I purchased a wedding cake from this establishment for her mother's wedding. We spent 250. When we decided to get married ourselves chose to back and purchase a second cake. Today, January 17, 2013, we went for our cake tasting. When asked for a grooms name my soon to be mother in law informed them of my name. The owner then proceeded to say we were abominations unto the lord and refused to make another cake for us despite having already paid 250 once and having done business in the past. We were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiancé reduced to tears. This is absolutely unacceptable."

The statement was written from Bowmans perspective in the first person and she wasn't even there. That is perjury.

That's not perjury, her casual use of "we" is because she is the one who filed the complaint. That's matters not a damn in this case. Here are all the facts you need, 122 pages of them. Have fun: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

 

[Skylar]

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?

Read the oregon PA law.

Yup. Have you? If so, explain how a woman's locker room isn't a 'full and equal accommodation'.

And then explain why woman's locker room has never been found to be a violation of Oregon PA laws by any legal authority in Oregon. Or any other state. What do they know that you don't?

Read the USSC ruling. I am now the same as a lesbian.

I have. Explain how a woman's locker-room isn't a 'full and equal accommodation'.

You can't. Which is why you're avoiding the question. Its not going away. Either demonstrate in the law that a woman's locker-room isn't a 'full and equal accommodation', or admit you can't.

Its one or the other.

It's already starting:

Woman Is Suing Planet Fitness Over Locker Room Policy The Daily Caller

See your crap about showers/lockers being gender specific for a reason is simply crap.

That's not PA laws. You've just moved your goal posts.

If your PA law argument had merit you wouldn't have had to run.

You do realize this is just the beginning, right?

You do realize that you have no idea what you're talking about, right? That your pseudo-legal gibberish has never matched up to any legal outcome? That you were wrong 'incest marriage', you were wrong on polygamy, you were wrong women's restrooms, you were wrong on PA laws?

That nothing you've predicted has ever actually happened.

And you can't possibly explain how a women's rest room isn't a 'full and complete accomidation'.

Keep running.