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

[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.

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.

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.

Holyfuckingshit!

We made no such argument. Remember? You're the one who doesn't know a locker room has no obligation to provide a service for couples.

Shit for brains.

You WERE correct. The USSC gave similar situated status TO ALL MARRIED COUPLES.

You are a friggin bigot

Get used to it

 

[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.

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.

And so you believe seperate bathrooms for blacks are OK if they are equal.

Friggin bigot.

 

[Pop23]

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.

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.

They used that same argument when the ERA was up for approval by states too, btw. I remember it well.

Jim Crow laws were the same argument as yours. Make them equal but keep them seperate.

Another bigot comes out of the closet.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

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. 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.

WRONG, when people are judged to be similar situated EVERYTHING must be open to those individuals.
.

But 'people' haven't been judged to be similarly situated.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

They used that same argument when the ERA was up for approval by states too, btw. I remember it well.

Jim Crow laws were the same argument as yours. Make them equal but keep them seperate.

Another bigot comes out of the closet.

Pop- still making his predictions on the results of Americans who are gay being allowed to legally marry....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

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.

And so you believe seperate bathrooms for blacks are OK if they are equal.

Friggin bigot.

The last time checked ******* still had penises and vaginas, which is how we legally discriminate in assigning bathrooms. Need pictures?

 

[Faun]

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.

Oregon law yes, constitutional law no because no one can be forced to associate with anyone outside their place of business.

No one is forcing the baker to associate with anyone outside of their business.

 

[Pop23]

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.

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.

And so you believe seperate bathrooms for blacks are OK if they are equal.

Friggin bigot.

The last time checked ******* still had penises and vaginas, which is how we legally discriminate in assigning bathrooms. Need pictures?

That was prior to same sex marriage passing the USSC muster

Now a lesbian married couple is equal to a male/female couple.

One couple can enter the woman's locker, but the other MUST seperate.

Hardly equal, hardly similar.

Guess they aren't similarly situated.

So, PMH, what is the remarkable difference between a married lesbian entering the locker room with her spouse, and the married married male entering the locker room with his?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.


>>>>

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.


>>>>

But he didn't say that in the presence of either of the couple, so why would it even be an issue?

Because it goes toward the reason service was refused was not based on a valid business consideration.

They also include actions that none of the three were present for.

There were four people involved not three. LBC, RBC, CM, and AK. RBC and CM were at the store, LBC was part of the wedding purchase even though she wasn't physically present. AK of course was the store owner.

RBC, CM and AK were physically present, LBC is involved because her gender was the basis of being denied equal service. If RBC and LBC were male and female, then service would have been rendered and they (as a couple) wold be ordering the cake. Since RBC and LBC were female, service was denied.



>>>>

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Oregon law yes, constitutional law no because no one can be forced to associate with anyone outside their place of business.

No one is forcing the baker to associate with anyone outside of their business.

A wedding cake service usually includes delivering and setting up the cake at the reception venue, outside the business.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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.

And so you believe seperate bathrooms for blacks are OK if they are equal.

Friggin bigot.

The last time checked ******* still had penises and vaginas, which is how we legally discriminate in assigning bathrooms. Need pictures?

That was prior to same sex marriage passing the USSC muster

Now a lesbian married couple is equal to a male/female couple.

One couple can enter the woman's locker, but the other MUST seperate.

Hardly equal, hardly similar.

Guess they aren't similarly situated.

So, PMH, what is the remarkable difference between a married lesbian entering the locker room with her spouse, and the married married male entering the locker room with his?

More of Pop's continued melt down.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Oregon law yes, constitutional law no because no one can be forced to associate with anyone outside their place of business.

No one is forcing the baker to associate with anyone outside of their business.

A wedding cake service usually includes delivering and setting up the cake at the reception venue, outside the business.

Was this baker asked to do that?

 

[Faun]

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?

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. 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.

WRONG, when people are judged to be similar situated EVERYTHING must be open to those individuals.

Or you claim that the back of the bus was good public policy for blacks.

You won the status, deal with it.

Imbecile... I highlighted the salient text in your post. A "couple" is not an "individual.'

Look at that ... there goes your argument over the edge...

 

[OKTexas]

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.


>>>>

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.


>>>>

But he didn't say that in the presence of either of the couple, so why would it even be an issue?

Because it goes toward the reason service was refused was not based on a valid business consideration.

They also include actions that none of the three were present for.

There were four people involved not three. LBC, RBC, CM, and AK. RBC and CM were at the store, LBC was part of the wedding purchase even though she wasn't physically present. AK of course was the store owner.

RBC, CM and AK were physically present, LBC is involved because her gender was the basis of being denied equal service. If RBC and LBC were male and female, then service would have been rendered and they (as a couple) wold be ordering the cake. Since RBC and LBC were female, service was denied.



>>>>

So AK just doesn't like women? Really? He wouldn't have said the same had they been males?

 

[bodecea]

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

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.

And so you believe seperate bathrooms for blacks are OK if they are equal.

Friggin bigot.

The last time checked ******* still had penises and vaginas, which is how we legally discriminate in assigning bathrooms. Need pictures?

That was prior to same sex marriage passing the USSC muster

Now a lesbian married couple is equal to a male/female couple.

One couple can enter the woman's locker, but the other MUST seperate.

Hardly equal, hardly similar.

Guess they aren't similarly situated.

So, PMH, what is the remarkable difference between a married lesbian entering the locker room with her spouse, and the married married male entering the locker room with his?

Nope...that's not how it works....but feel free to file legal briefs on it.

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

Holyfuckingshit!

We made no such argument. Remember? You're the one who doesn't know a locker room has no obligation to provide a service for couples.

Shit for brains.

You WERE correct. The USSC gave similar situated status TO ALL MARRIED COUPLES.

You are a friggin bigot

Get used to it

And you're a fucking imbecile. The Supreme Court did not give access to any couples, regardless of sexual orientation, to services as a couple which didn't exist before. Unlike marriage, a locker room is not a "couples" service. A locker room provides services for individuals, not couples.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Oregon law yes, constitutional law no because no one can be forced to associate with anyone outside their place of business.

No one is forcing the baker to associate with anyone outside of their business.

A wedding cake service usually includes delivering and setting up the cake at the reception venue, outside the business.

Was this baker asked to do that?

According to the complaint they asked for a wedding cake service, not just a cake.

 

[Pop23]

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.

And so you believe seperate bathrooms for blacks are OK if they are equal.

Friggin bigot.

The last time checked ******* still had penises and vaginas, which is how we legally discriminate in assigning bathrooms. Need pictures?

That was prior to same sex marriage passing the USSC muster

Now a lesbian married couple is equal to a male/female couple.

One couple can enter the woman's locker, but the other MUST seperate.

Hardly equal, hardly similar.

Guess they aren't similarly situated.

So, PMH, what is the remarkable difference between a married lesbian entering the locker room with her spouse, and the married married male entering the locker room with his?

Nope...that's not how it works....but feel free to file legal briefs on it.

Wow, that is some powerful arguments you make.

Nope, that is how it works, or the groups are not similarily situated.

 

[Pop23]

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.

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.

Holyfuckingshit!

We made no such argument. Remember? You're the one who doesn't know a locker room has no obligation to provide a service for couples.

Shit for brains.

You WERE correct. The USSC gave similar situated status TO ALL MARRIED COUPLES.

You are a friggin bigot

Get used to it

And you're a fucking imbecile. The Supreme Court did not give access to any couples, regardless of sexual orientation, to services as a couple which didn't exist before. Unlike marriage, a locker room is not a "couples" service. A locker room provides services for individuals, not couples.

Got it, if a couple wishes to enter the locker room together that is specifically prohibited since only individuals may enter?

Are you really that stupid?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.


>>>>

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.


>>>>

But he didn't say that in the presence of either of the couple, so why would it even be an issue?

Because it goes toward the reason service was refused was not based on a valid business consideration.

They also include actions that none of the three were present for.

There were four people involved not three. LBC, RBC, CM, and AK. RBC and CM were at the store, LBC was part of the wedding purchase even though she wasn't physically present. AK of course was the store owner.

RBC, CM and AK were physically present, LBC is involved because her gender was the basis of being denied equal service. If RBC and LBC were male and female, then service would have been rendered and they (as a couple) wold be ordering the cake. Since RBC and LBC were female, service was denied.



>>>>

So AK just doesn't like women? Really? He wouldn't have said the same had they been males?

1. Where did I say AK didn't like women? Please quote that for me. RBC and CM were there for a tasting, he refused service once he found out that LBC and RBC were both women.

2. If two men had come in to order a wedding cake and questioned him on the refusal to do so I'm higly confident that he would have call the males admonitions also.


So?


>>>>