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

[Pop23]

N

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.

Bigot

 

[Skylar]

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.

So who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

 

[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

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.

No flip needed.

The two groups were judged to be similarily situated. Once that judgement was made, the two groups must have equal access.

I suppose you're in favor if Black only restrooms and drinking fountains?

That is the argument you make and appears quite bigoted.

 

[Pop23]

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.

So who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

I've answered that question at least a dozen times.

If you can't keep up, or are having a rough time justifying your bigoted attitude toward straights, I suggest you leave, cuz you're quite annoying.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

I've answered that question at least a dozen times.

Evasion. If you can't answer the question just say so.

I'll ask it again: who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Yeah, right...
You just keep believing what you need to validate your prejudice.

Why are you defending liars?

Who do you believe is lying - and about what?

Bowman lied by indicating she was there and witnessed the events, she didn't. Her complete statement in the link is hear-say. A second had account, written in the first person, and not even an accurate one.

Nobody lied. The excerpt from the link I provided was the letter that Laurel Bowman wrote. WorldWatcher linked to the actual official complaint that was provided and signed by Rachel Cryer, who was present at the time the discrimination occurred. There were no lies.

 

[Pop23]

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.

So who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

I've answered that question at least a dozen times.

Evasion. If you can't answer the question just say so.

I'll ask it again: who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

I will not keep answering the question over and over again to amuse a bigot.

Quit trolling and participate like an adult.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

I've answered that question at least a dozen times.

Evasion. If you can't answer the question just say so.

I'll ask it again: who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

I will not keep answering the question over and over again to amuse a bigot.

Quit trolling and participate like an adult.

And now excuses why you can't answer. Gee, how did I know that was coming.

No wonder your pseudo-legal predictions never actually happen in the real world. You can't even answer a simple question in a hypothetical one.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

So who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

I've answered that question at least a dozen times.

Evasion. If you can't answer the question just say so.

I'll ask it again: who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

I will not keep answering the question over and over again to amuse a bigot.

Quit trolling and participate like an adult.

No you haven't. You deflected with another statement but didn't answer the question. You are not denied full and complete accommodation because you can't enter the ladies locker room. You are not denied a hole to pee in nor a shower to wash in. Public Accommodation laws are not violated.

Arguing that restrooms are separate but equal is a far better tactic and one where you may even gain some traction eventually. Stick with that and good luck. Let us know when it gets to court.

 

[Pop23]

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.

So who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

I've answered that question at least a dozen times.

Evasion. If you can't answer the question just say so.

I'll ask it again: who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

I will not keep answering the question over and over again to amuse a bigot.

Quit trolling and participate like an adult.

No you haven't. You deflected with another statement but didn't answer the question. You are not denied full and complete accommodation because you can't enter the ladies locker room. You are not denied a hole to pee in nor a shower to wash in. Public Accommodation laws are not violated.

Arguing that restrooms are separate but equal is a far better tactic and one where you may even gain some traction eventually. Stick with that and good luck. Let us know when it gets to court.

And Rosa Parks was not denied complete access because there were seats in the back of the bus? Even though the courts had classified her as similarily situated?

She also had her own equal water fountain. That is your argument. It failed then and is destined to fail again.

I never thought I'd see the RAINBOW FLAG in the same class as THE CONFERDERATE FLAG.

Bigotry is not a good look for you Wytch.

 

[Skylar]

So who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

I've answered that question at least a dozen times.

Evasion. If you can't answer the question just say so.

I'll ask it again: who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

I will not keep answering the question over and over again to amuse a bigot.

Quit trolling and participate like an adult.

No you haven't. You deflected with another statement but didn't answer the question. You are not denied full and complete accommodation because you can't enter the ladies locker room. You are not denied a hole to pee in nor a shower to wash in. Public Accommodation laws are not violated.

Arguing that restrooms are separate but equal is a far better tactic and one where you may even gain some traction eventually. Stick with that and good luck. Let us know when it gets to court.

And Rosa Parks was not denied complete access because there were seats in the back of the bus? Even though the courts had classified her as similarily situated?

So Rosa Parks is the one denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

She's dead. She doesn't use the ladies room all the often anymore. So let me ask again, for the third time, who would be denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

 

[Seawytch]

So who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

I've answered that question at least a dozen times.

Evasion. If you can't answer the question just say so.

I'll ask it again: who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

I will not keep answering the question over and over again to amuse a bigot.

Quit trolling and participate like an adult.

No you haven't. You deflected with another statement but didn't answer the question. You are not denied full and complete accommodation because you can't enter the ladies locker room. You are not denied a hole to pee in nor a shower to wash in. Public Accommodation laws are not violated.

Arguing that restrooms are separate but equal is a far better tactic and one where you may even gain some traction eventually. Stick with that and good luck. Let us know when it gets to court.

And Rosa Parks was not denied complete access because there were seats in the back of the bus? Even though the courts had classified her as similarily situated?

She also had her own equal water fountain. That is your argument. It failed then and is destined to fail again.

I never thought I'd see the RAINBOW FLAG in the same class as THE CONFERDERATE FLAG.

Bigotry is not a good look for you Wytch.

Oh Poppy...there ya go being unintentionally funny again. Did you even bother to read my post at all? I'll type a little slower for you.

Public Accommodation laws are not being violated if you can't peek in the girls locker room. You have full and complete access to accommodations. You can pee in a toilet and shower in a shower. This is a fact you cannot deny. You can deflect and ignore, but can't deny. Your access to public accommodations is not prohibited in any way because of your gender.

Am I still typing slowly enough for you? Now, if you would like to argue that restroom accommodations for men and women are not equal, I am wishing you the best of luck in your court case. They aren't equal. Women's restrooms smell better. You've got a case. Go for it.

 

[Faun]

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.

Umm, again... everyone already has access to them. Your argument that some people can use them while others can't is false. Are you stupid or lying?

 

[Faun]

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.

Ummm ... no one's being excluded.

 

[Faun]

N

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.

Bigot

Oh? Bigot against whom?

 

[Pop23]

I've answered that question at least a dozen times.

Evasion. If you can't answer the question just say so.

I'll ask it again: who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

I will not keep answering the question over and over again to amuse a bigot.

Quit trolling and participate like an adult.

No you haven't. You deflected with another statement but didn't answer the question. You are not denied full and complete accommodation because you can't enter the ladies locker room. You are not denied a hole to pee in nor a shower to wash in. Public Accommodation laws are not violated.

Arguing that restrooms are separate but equal is a far better tactic and one where you may even gain some traction eventually. Stick with that and good luck. Let us know when it gets to court.

And Rosa Parks was not denied complete access because there were seats in the back of the bus? Even though the courts had classified her as similarily situated?

She also had her own equal water fountain. That is your argument. It failed then and is destined to fail again.

I never thought I'd see the RAINBOW FLAG in the same class as THE CONFERDERATE FLAG.

Bigotry is not a good look for you Wytch.

Oh Poppy...there ya go being unintentionally funny again. Did you even bother to read my post at all? I'll type a little slower for you.

Public Accommodation laws are not being violated if you can't peek in the girls locker room. You have full and complete access to accommodations. You can pee in a toilet and shower in a shower. This is a fact you cannot deny. You can deflect and ignore, but can't deny. Your access to public accommodations is not prohibited in any way because of your gender.

Am I still typing slowly enough for you? Now, if you would like to argue that restroom accommodations for men and women are not equal, I am wishing you the best of luck in your court case. They aren't equal. Women's restrooms smell better. You've got a case. Go for it.

IT IS A RED LETTER DAY FOR POP23.

SeaWytch has indicated she does not believe same sex married couples are similarily situated to opposite sex married couples.

Why? Because the "package" that one couple has includes something the other couple does not have.

BRAVO SeaWytch, you've shown the capability to learn.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Umm, again... everyone already has access to them. Your argument that some people can use them while others can't is false. Are you stupid or lying?

Tell that to Rosa Parks.

You do know who Rosa Parks is right?

 

[Skylar]

Evasion. If you can't answer the question just say so.

I'll ask it again: who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

I will not keep answering the question over and over again to amuse a bigot.

Quit trolling and participate like an adult.

No you haven't. You deflected with another statement but didn't answer the question. You are not denied full and complete accommodation because you can't enter the ladies locker room. You are not denied a hole to pee in nor a shower to wash in. Public Accommodation laws are not violated.

Arguing that restrooms are separate but equal is a far better tactic and one where you may even gain some traction eventually. Stick with that and good luck. Let us know when it gets to court.

And Rosa Parks was not denied complete access because there were seats in the back of the bus? Even though the courts had classified her as similarily situated?

She also had her own equal water fountain. That is your argument. It failed then and is destined to fail again.

I never thought I'd see the RAINBOW FLAG in the same class as THE CONFERDERATE FLAG.

Bigotry is not a good look for you Wytch.

Oh Poppy...there ya go being unintentionally funny again. Did you even bother to read my post at all? I'll type a little slower for you.

Public Accommodation laws are not being violated if you can't peek in the girls locker room. You have full and complete access to accommodations. You can pee in a toilet and shower in a shower. This is a fact you cannot deny. You can deflect and ignore, but can't deny. Your access to public accommodations is not prohibited in any way because of your gender.

Am I still typing slowly enough for you? Now, if you would like to argue that restroom accommodations for men and women are not equal, I am wishing you the best of luck in your court case. They aren't equal. Women's restrooms smell better. You've got a case. Go for it.

IT IS A RED LETTER DAY FOR POP23.

SeaWytch has indicated she does not believe same sex married couples are similarily situated to opposite sex married couples.

Why? Because the "package" that one couple has includes something the other couple does not have.

BRAVO SeaWytch, you've shown the capability to learn.

That doesn't answer any of the questions I asked.

Who would be denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

 

[Faun]

Evasion. If you can't answer the question just say so.

I'll ask it again: who is being denied a 'full and complete accommodation' by a ladies room?

I will not keep answering the question over and over again to amuse a bigot.

Quit trolling and participate like an adult.

No you haven't. You deflected with another statement but didn't answer the question. You are not denied full and complete accommodation because you can't enter the ladies locker room. You are not denied a hole to pee in nor a shower to wash in. Public Accommodation laws are not violated.

Arguing that restrooms are separate but equal is a far better tactic and one where you may even gain some traction eventually. Stick with that and good luck. Let us know when it gets to court.

And Rosa Parks was not denied complete access because there were seats in the back of the bus? Even though the courts had classified her as similarily situated?

She also had her own equal water fountain. That is your argument. It failed then and is destined to fail again.

I never thought I'd see the RAINBOW FLAG in the same class as THE CONFERDERATE FLAG.

Bigotry is not a good look for you Wytch.

Oh Poppy...there ya go being unintentionally funny again. Did you even bother to read my post at all? I'll type a little slower for you.

Public Accommodation laws are not being violated if you can't peek in the girls locker room. You have full and complete access to accommodations. You can pee in a toilet and shower in a shower. This is a fact you cannot deny. You can deflect and ignore, but can't deny. Your access to public accommodations is not prohibited in any way because of your gender.

Am I still typing slowly enough for you? Now, if you would like to argue that restroom accommodations for men and women are not equal, I am wishing you the best of luck in your court case. They aren't equal. Women's restrooms smell better. You've got a case. Go for it.

IT IS A RED LETTER DAY FOR POP23.

SeaWytch has indicated she does not believe same sex married couples are similarily situated to opposite sex married couples.

Why? Because the "package" that one couple has includes something the other couple does not have.

BRAVO SeaWytch, you've shown the capability to learn.

Is it anyone else's fault that you are unable to comprehend that a locker room is not about couples whereas marriage is?

 

[Faun]

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.

Umm, again... everyone already has access to them. Your argument that some people can use them while others can't is false. Are you stupid or lying?

Tell that to Rosa Parks.

You do know who Rosa Parks is right?

Yeah, she's another person that makes you look like a complete fucking idiot.