Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is it anyone else's fault that you are unable to comprehend that a locker room is not about couples whereas marriage is?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.
Yeah, she's another person that makes you look like a complete fucking idiot.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?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.
Tell that to Rosa Parks.
You do know who Rosa Parks is right?
Is it anyone else's fault that you are unable to comprehend that a locker room is not about couples whereas marriage is?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.
Got it, couples can't possibly want to enter the same locker room. And the truth is, only same sex couples can enter the locker rooms together, giving those couples GREATER RIGHTS that opposite sex married couples.
And in your world, black only bathrooms are legit because they are equal to the White Mans bathrooms.
Bigot.
What a retarded argument.Is it anyone else's fault that you are unable to comprehend that a locker room is not about couples whereas marriage is?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.
Got it, couples can't possibly want to enter the same locker room. And the truth is, only same sex couples can enter the locker rooms together, giving those couples GREATER RIGHTS that opposite sex married couples.
And in your world, black only bathrooms are legit because they are equal to the White Mans bathrooms.
Bigot.
Who said anything about couples not wanting to enter a locker room together?? Idiot... a locker room is not a service about couples. It provides a service where you can shower, change/store clothes, etc... You're demanding it provide an additional service for couples which is like demanding a kosher restaurant serve bacon. A marriage, on the other hand, is all about couples. Like I said.. it's no one else's fault you can't comprehend that.
Holyfuckingshit!Yeah, she's another person that makes you look like a complete fucking idiot.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?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.
Tell that to Rosa Parks.
You do know who Rosa Parks is right?
You haven't a clue what an idiot you look like.
You, like SeaWytch just did, argue that same sex couples are not similarily situated, which is the basic reason same sex marriage bans were established.
Good lord you're a simpleton.
The only thing you care about is that she's gay. Nothing else matters to you.That's not perjury because the partner is the one who filed the complaint. 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
No need, 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.
Got to go, my dads in the hospital.
It wasn't a court statement it was a complaint filed. The commission with whom the complaint was filed found evidence of discrimination...then it went to court.
And everything beyond the lies in the complaint was based on and tainted by those lies. Why are you defending liars?
I guess you queers are all alike, liars..
Who do you believe is lying - and about what?Yeah, right...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.
You just keep believing what you need to validate your prejudice.
Why are you defending liars?
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.
Rachel Bowman-Cryer and Cheryl McPherson were at the tasting. Laural Bowman-Cryer wasn't there.
They are both named "Bowman".
There was no claim that both were there, the finding of facts - which are uncontested by the Klien's - were that it was RBC and CM at the tasting.
If your claim is about LBC, please provide the PDF page where she claimed to have been at the tasting.
http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf
\>>>>
As I has said before, there is legal discrimination and illegal discrimination. Don't mix the two up.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
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.
As I has said before, there is legal discrimination and illegal discrimination. Don't mix the two up.Separate but equal is okay when the courts approve, as in, locker rooms.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
Ahhhh, now we've redefined who is like situated, that changed thing a wee bit
In the same vain as a Married lesbian spouse was judged to be similarily situated as a straight husband.
.
Who do you believe is lying - and about what?Yeah, right...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.
You just keep believing what you need to validate your prejudice.
Why are you defending liars?
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.
And she was not present when the mother was supposedly quoted bible verses.
Tex, did Sweet Cakes break the law, yes or no?
And she was not present when the mother was supposedly quoted bible verses.
That fact that Aaron Klein quoted Leviticus and referred to the couple as an abomination is an uncontested fact in the case.
By "uncontested", referred to in the court ruling as "undisputed material facts", that means that Aaron Klein agreed that was a description that he used. He if claimed that he never referred to the couple as an abomination, than that would have been a "contested material fact" in the case.
>>>>
I understand that the business that discriminated against Christians was fined even more. Where is the outrage and the FundMe accounts?Who do you believe is lying - and about what?Yeah, right...
You just keep believing what you need to validate your prejudice.
Why are you defending liars?
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.
Rachel Bowman-Cryer and Cheryl McPherson were at the tasting. Laural Bowman-Cryer wasn't there.
They are both named "Bowman".
There was no claim that both were there, the finding of facts - which are uncontested by the Klien's - were that it was RBC and CM at the tasting.
If your claim is about LBC, please provide the PDF page where she claimed to have been at the tasting.
http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf
\>>>>
He can't- for some odd reason OKTexas feels a need to lie- about this couple lying.
There is no indication that anything in the complaint is actually false and material. The facts of the case are clear- the couple that ordered the cake were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation- in violation of Oregon law.
Just as the same commission penalized another business for discrimination against a Christian, this commission under the same law, penalized this business for discrimination against a couple for their sexual orientation.
Anyone remember anyone complaining when the business was penalized for discriminating against Christians?
They used that same argument when the ERA was up for approval by states too, btw. I remember it well.As I has said before, there is legal discrimination and illegal discrimination. Don't mix the two up.Separate but equal is okay when the courts approve, as in, locker rooms.Separate but equal is ok, but only when you like it
We get that
Ahhhh, now we've redefined who is like situated, that changed thing a wee bit
In the same vain as a Married lesbian spouse was judged to be similarily situated as a straight husband.
.
In marriage.
Locker rooms are not differentiated by marriage- but by gender.
11 years of same gender marriage being legal in parts of the United States- and yet none of Pop's dire predictions have come to pass.
Yes, or no? It all follows from there. If you can't be an honest man about that there's nowhere to go.Tex, did Sweet Cakes break the law, yes or no?
Tell me, what's included in a wedding cake service?
Yes, or no? It all follows from there. If you can't be an honest man about that there's nowhere to go.Tex, did Sweet Cakes break the law, yes or no?
Tell me, what's included in a wedding cake service?
You should have stopped there. And with that, since the SC has upheld PA laws for decades, we're done.Oregon law yes....
What a retarded argument.Is it anyone else's fault that you are unable to comprehend that a locker room is not about couples whereas marriage is?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.
Got it, couples can't possibly want to enter the same locker room. And the truth is, only same sex couples can enter the locker rooms together, giving those couples GREATER RIGHTS that opposite sex married couples.
And in your world, black only bathrooms are legit because they are equal to the White Mans bathrooms.
Bigot.
