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

[AugmentedDog]

Yay for you!
You still advocate hatred and teach that gay people are "abominations."
What a tribute to humanity.you are!

There ya go, lying again.

I do not lie - ever.

That's a lie if you can't prove your statements, which you can't because they're false.

:rolls eyes:
<disgusted sigh>
Got anything real to say?

Got anything factual to say.

I already did.
You are dismissed.

 

[OKTexas]

Did you bother to read the initial complaint written by Bowman? She lied her ass off indicating she was there, she wasn't.

Link to original complaint - http://katubim.s3.amazonaws.com/Sweet Cakes Complaint.pdf

The complaint was filed by Rachel Cryer (Bowman-Cryer), she was at the tasting with the mother Cheryl McPherson.


>>>>

Seawitch posted a different link in post 2567, which was written by Bowman in the first person indicating she was there. Check it out.

 

[OKTexas]

There ya go, lying again.

I do not lie - ever.

That's a lie if you can't prove your statements, which you can't because they're false.

:rolls eyes:
<disgusted sigh>
Got anything real to say?

Got anything factual to say.

I already did.
You are dismissed.

There ya go, lying again.

You posted assumptions, not facts.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

There is no such service as "escorting a spouse" into a locker room. Again, that is not the purpose of a locker room. The accommodations of a locker room are still made to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference.

No one is being discriminated against.

Separate but equal is ok, but only when you like it

We get that

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Tex, did Sweet Cakes break the law, yes or no?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

There is no such service as "escorting a spouse" into a locker room. Again, that is not the purpose of a locker room. The accommodations of a locker room are still made to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference.

No one is being discriminated against.

Separate but equal is ok, but only when you like it

We get that

Separate but equal is okay when the courts approve, as in, locker rooms.

 

[Pop23]

That doesn't help you at all since that is a genital issue, not a spousal issue. That invalidates your point completely.

Ummm, dudes a male, in a woman's locker room.

She is transgender, but not completely yet obviously, and that doesn't help you at all because the woman is upset not about a spouse in her locker room, but a penis, which we can legally discriminate based upon.

She? Where's she stick the tampon?

All women need to use tampons? I haven't needed one since I had an endometrial abrasion. Still a woman.

Or are you??????????bwaaaaahhaaaaaaaaa

She did use them though, when did the male tranny need one?

Deflection shows the weakness of the argument.

Loving it!

 

[Pop23]

So it's ok to discriminate against groups, just not individuals.

So the sign SeaWytch posted saying "no queers allowed" is not discrimination?

Then, of course there's this link.....Woman Is Suing Planet Fitness Over Locker Room Policy The Daily Caller

Hmmmmmm

There is legal discrimination, bathrooms, and illegal discrimination, marriage licenses. Is this news to you? A lot of us got over this after taking baths with our sisters. Seems to be a problem for you still?

Ahhhhh, the marriage license issue was when your hero Justice Kennedy declared we were like situated.

See how easy that was, like playing dominoes.

So, you go ahead and bathe with your sister if you like, us adults will deal with the USSC's societal ramifications.

If this is your version of "dealing with it", I would hate to see what it's like when you don't. How about just dealing with equal bathrooms and equal standing before the law, instead of worrying about who might get aroused seeing others of their same sex standing around in their undies?

Lesbians get aroused looking at women (ask SeaWytch)

Men get aroused looking at women (ask me)

Making us similar situated.

Except there is no titillation for women that there would be for men.

If you truly feel discriminated against, you can take your case to court. Good luck.

OMG, you are loony!

 

[Pop23]

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.

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

There is no such service as "escorting a spouse" into a locker room. Again, that is not the purpose of a locker room. The accommodations of a locker room are still made to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference.

No one is being discriminated against.

Separate but equal is ok, but only when you like it

We get that

Separate but equal is okay when the courts approve, as in, locker rooms.

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

I guess it's in the courts hands now!

 

[Pop23]

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.

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

There is no such service as "escorting a spouse" into a locker room. Again, that is not the purpose of a locker room. The accommodations of a locker room are still made to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference.

No one is being discriminated against.

Just pointing out that despite same gender marriage being legal in Massachusetts for 11 years, and in dozens of other states for various amounts of time- literally none of what Pop has predicted has happened.

He has a perfect record- of failure.

Of course he does ... just like he has a perfect record of failing in his attempt to show discrimination in a locker room; where no such discrimination exists.

If there are signs, there is.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

There is no such service as "escorting a spouse" into a locker room. Again, that is not the purpose of a locker room. The accommodations of a locker room are still made to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference.

No one is being discriminated against.

Separate but equal is ok, but only when you like it

We get that

Separate but equal is okay when the courts approve, as in, locker rooms.

Ahhhh, now we've redefined who is like situated, that changed thing a wee bit

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

There is no such service as "escorting a spouse" into a locker room. Again, that is not the purpose of a locker room. The accommodations of a locker room are still made to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference.

No one is being discriminated against.

Separate but equal is ok, but only when you like it

We get that

Separate but equal is okay when the courts approve, as in, locker rooms.

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

I guess it's in the courts hands now!

That it is, and they will have to decide if the gym was entitled to revoke her membership because of this policy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

There is no such service as "escorting a spouse" into a locker room. Again, that is not the purpose of a locker room. The accommodations of a locker room are still made to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference.

No one is being discriminated against.

Separate but equal is ok, but only when you like it

We get that

Separate but equal is okay when the courts approve, as in, locker rooms.

Ahhhh, now we've redefined who is like situated, that changed thing a wee bit

As I has said before, there is legal discrimination and illegal discrimination. Don't mix the two up.

 

[Faun]

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.

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

There is no such service as "escorting a spouse" into a locker room. Again, that is not the purpose of a locker room. The accommodations of a locker room are still made to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference.

No one is being discriminated against.

Separate but equal is ok, but only when you like it

We get that

Cute how you keep crying discrimination; yet when it's pointed out there's no discrimination, you flip to separate but equal.

.... and still, no one is discrimated against in you failed locker room analogy. Unlike the lesbian couple who were discriminated against when a baker refused to sell them a wedding cake because they're lesbians.

 

[Faun]

N

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.

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

There is no such service as "escorting a spouse" into a locker room. Again, that is not the purpose of a locker room. The accommodations of a locker room are still made to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference.

No one is being discriminated against.

Just pointing out that despite same gender marriage being legal in Massachusetts for 11 years, and in dozens of other states for various amounts of time- literally none of what Pop has predicted has happened.

He has a perfect record- of failure.

Of course he does ... just like he has a perfect record of failing in his attempt to show discrimination in a locker room; where no such discrimination exists.

If there are signs, there is.

Nope, there still isn't discrimination. Not even if there are signs. Both sexes have equal access to the locker rooms.

 

[Skylar]

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.

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

There is no such service as "escorting a spouse" into a locker room. Again, that is not the purpose of a locker room. The accommodations of a locker room are still made to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference.

No one is being discriminated against.

Separate but equal is ok, but only when you like it

We get that

Cute how you keep crying discrimination; yet when it's pointed out there's no discrimination, you flip to separate but equal.

.... and still, no one is discrimated against in you failed locker room analogy. Unlike the lesbian couple who were discriminated against when a baker refused to sell them a wedding cake because they're lesbians.

Nope. Nor is Pop able to explain how a women's lockerroom isn't 'full and complete accommodation'. Which is the standard of PA laws in general and Oregon's in particular.

While anyone here can describe how denying a cake to a lesbian couple isn't a full and complete accommodation for gays and lesbians.

 

[Pop23]

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

There is no such service as "escorting a spouse" into a locker room. Again, that is not the purpose of a locker room. The accommodations of a locker room are still made to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference.

No one is being discriminated against.

Separate but equal is ok, but only when you like it

We get that

Separate but equal is okay when the courts approve, as in, locker rooms.

Ahhhh, now we've redefined who is like situated, that changed thing a wee bit

As I has said before, there is legal discrimination and illegal discrimination. Don't mix the two up.

Yes, blacks could not be discriminated against because they were judged to be similarily situated as whites.

In the same vain as a Married lesbian spouse was judged to be similarily situated as a straight husband.

Yet one can access the locker room together, while the other can't.

 

[Skylar]

There is no such service as "escorting a spouse" into a locker room. Again, that is not the purpose of a locker room. The accommodations of a locker room are still made to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference.

No one is being discriminated against.

Separate but equal is ok, but only when you like it

We get that

Separate but equal is okay when the courts approve, as in, locker rooms.

Ahhhh, now we've redefined who is like situated, that changed thing a wee bit

As I has said before, there is legal discrimination and illegal discrimination. Don't mix the two up.

Yes, blacks could not be discriminated against because they were judged to be similarily situated as whites.

In the same vain as a Married lesbian spouce was judged to be similarily situated as a straight husband.

Yet one can access the locker room together, while the other can't.

And how, pray tell, is a ladies locker room not 'full and complete accommodation'?

And please be specific.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You just love distraction. The male in a straight couple cannot escort his wife into the women's locker room as the lesbian partners can, which is odd since the USSC said all four in my example are the same.

There is no such service as "escorting a spouse" into a locker room. Again, that is not the purpose of a locker room. The accommodations of a locker room are still made to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference.

No one is being discriminated against.

Separate but equal is ok, but only when you like it

We get that

Cute how you keep crying discrimination; yet when it's pointed out there's no discrimination, you flip to separate but equal.

.... and still, no one is discrimated against in you failed locker room analogy. Unlike the lesbian couple who were discriminated against when a baker refused to sell them a wedding cake because they're lesbians.

Nope. Nor is Pop able to explain how a women's lockerroom isn't 'full and complete accommodation'. Which is the standard of PA laws in general and Oregon's in particular.

While anyone here can describe how denying a cake to a lesbian couple isn't a full and complete accommodation for gays and lesbians.

Oh, I have, if only a select group can use them and another group that is similarly situated cannot, then the accomodations are seperate but equal.

If you agree that this is appropriate public policy, then the same must be true with same sex marriage.

To argue in the vain you are, then you must argue for Jim crow laws.

You don't get it both ways.

 

[Pop23]

Separate but equal is ok, but only when you like it

We get that

Separate but equal is okay when the courts approve, as in, locker rooms.

Ahhhh, now we've redefined who is like situated, that changed thing a wee bit

As I has said before, there is legal discrimination and illegal discrimination. Don't mix the two up.

Yes, blacks could not be discriminated against because they were judged to be similarily situated as whites.

In the same vain as a Married lesbian spouce was judged to be similarily situated as a straight husband.

Yet one can access the locker room together, while the other can't.

And how, pray tell, is a ladies locker room not 'full and complete accommodation'?

And please be specific.

When it excludes eligible users.

Again, are you for seperate but equal treatment for similarily situated citizens?.

It's an easy yes or no answer. Your either for equality or against it.