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

[Pop23]

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...

Duh, you are that stupid. 2 individuals make a couple moron.

In one case a couple may enter, in the other they may not.

Got it yet heterophobe?

Why are you so afraid of straight people?

 

[Faun]

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?

Not stupid enough to believe a locker room is a couples-oriented service.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Correct, they went in for a tasting expecting the same goods and services that the business provides to the public and full and equal goods and service (not a subset) as required by law.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I don't see that

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

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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...

Duh, you are that stupid. 2 individuals make a couple moron.

In one case a couple may enter, in the other they may not.

Got it yet heterophobe?

Why are you so afraid of straight people?

Got a joke for ya. Two vaginas walk into a room, and Pop gets mad. Oh wait, that's just stupid.

The solution, Pop, is for you to turn gay and get gay married. Then you can get turned on in your "couples" locker room. You'll be happy, and equal to the two gay vaginas.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

It's Pops still not understanding no matter how slowly I type for him.

Don't intentionally misrepresent what I said Pops, that's classic troll behavior.

I told you you have a case. Women's restrooms are superior. Good luck.

 

[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?

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?


>>>>

You're the one that brought up gender, read your post again.

"Since RBC and LBC were female, service was denied."

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Correct, they went in for a tasting expecting the same goods and services that the business provides to the public and full and equal goods and service (not a subset) as required by law.


>>>>

So you have no problem with forced association?

 

[Faun]

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...

Duh, you are that stupid. 2 individuals make a couple moron.

In one case a couple may enter, in the other they may not.

Got it yet heterophobe?

Why are you so afraid of straight people?

Do you think repeating your idiocy is going to make it lucid? A locker room does not provide services for couples. It provides showers, lockers, bathrooms, etc ... for individuals.

I can't help that you're too retarded to understand that a marriage is a service for couples but a locker room isn't. That's where your idiotic argument remains an idiotic argument. Repeating it does not help you.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I don't see that

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

Read item 1. at this link.

http://katubim.s3.amazonaws.com/Sweet Cakes Complaint.pdf

 

[Seawytch]

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.

A letter to whom?

And she was not present when the mother was supposedly quoted bible verses.

To the Oregon DOJ. Jesus fucking Christ it was right in the link AND the portion I quoted. The letter she penned started the events. The actual official complaint, which said nothing about being called anything (worldwatcher linked to it), was filed by the individual actually denied the service. Nobody lied.

 

[Pop23]

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.

It's Pops still not understanding no matter how slowly I type for him.

Don't intentionally misrepresent what I said Pops, that's classic troll behavior.

I told you you have a case. Women's restrooms are superior. Good luck.

Of course I have a case if I wished to pursue it.

Hell, I'd win, after all I am now just a male lesbian.

 

[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.


>>>>

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?


>>>>

You're the one that brought up gender, read your post again.

"Since RBC and LBC were female, service was denied."

Yes, since they were two females buying a wedding cake service was refuesed. That does not say, nor does it imply that AK doesn't like females, one would assume that since he is married to one himself he does like females.

Your attempt at word games though has no impact on the material facts of the case.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

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.

It's Pops still not understanding no matter how slowly I type for him.

Don't intentionally misrepresent what I said Pops, that's classic troll behavior.

I told you you have a case. Women's restrooms are superior. Good luck.

Of course I have a case if I wished to pursue it.

Hell, I'd win, after all I am now just a male lesbian.

Then I wish you good luck in your legal endeavor. Let us know when you file and how it goes.

 

[Pop23]

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...

Duh, you are that stupid. 2 individuals make a couple moron.

In one case a couple may enter, in the other they may not.

Got it yet heterophobe?

Why are you so afraid of straight people?

Do you think repeating your idiocy is going to make it lucid? A locker room does not provide services for couples. It provides showers, lockers, bathrooms, etc ... for individuals.

I can't help that you're too retarded to understand that a marriage is a service for couples but a locker room isn't. That's where your idiotic argument remains an idiotic argument. Repeating it does not help you.

And an individual that is similarly situated to others in that room is barred from it.

Sounds like Jim Crow all over again, unless you can come up with the remarkable difference between a lesbian and a married male.

Can you?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

A letter to whom?

And she was not present when the mother was supposedly quoted bible verses.

To the Oregon DOJ. Jesus fucking Christ it was right in the link AND the portion I quoted. The letter she penned started the events. The actual official complaint, which said nothing about being called anything (worldwatcher linked to it), was filed by the individual actually denied the service. Nobody lied.

And the letter she (Bowman) penned was a lie, written in the first person indicating she was present for the events.

 

[Pop23]

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.

It's Pops still not understanding no matter how slowly I type for him.

Don't intentionally misrepresent what I said Pops, that's classic troll behavior.

I told you you have a case. Women's restrooms are superior. Good luck.

Of course I have a case if I wished to pursue it.

Hell, I'd win, after all I am now just a male lesbian.

Then I wish you good luck in your legal endeavor. Let us know when you file and how it goes.

Another remarkably weak argument by someone struggling to support her long standing argument that the two demographic groups are so close to being the same that they must be treated equal.

Guess it was a lie after all.

 

[Faun]

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...

Duh, you are that stupid. 2 individuals make a couple moron.

In one case a couple may enter, in the other they may not.

Got it yet heterophobe?

Why are you so afraid of straight people?

Do you think repeating your idiocy is going to make it lucid? A locker room does not provide services for couples. It provides showers, lockers, bathrooms, etc ... for individuals.

I can't help that you're too retarded to understand that a marriage is a service for couples but a locker room isn't. That's where your idiotic argument remains an idiotic argument. Repeating it does not help you.

And an individual that is similarly situated to others in that room is barred from it.

Sounds like Jim Crow all over again, unless you can come up with the remarkable difference between a lesbian and a married male.

Can you?

Already answered that one. No need to repeat it.

Oh, and an individual is still not a couple. Have you figured that out yet?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I don't see that

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

Read item 1. at this link.

http://katubim.s3.amazonaws.com/Sweet Cakes Complaint.pdf

Thank you- you are correct.

And according to the complaint- the Bakery says it refuses to sell wedding cakes to same sex couples- and there is no qualification that includes service.

 

[OKTexas]

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.


>>>>

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?


>>>>

You're the one that brought up gender, read your post again.

"Since RBC and LBC were female, service was denied."

Yes, since they were two females buying a wedding cake service was refuesed. That does not say, nor does it imply that AK doesn't like females, one would assume that since he is married to one himself he does like females.

Your attempt at word games though has no impact on the material facts of the case.


>>>>

So you bring up they were female and I'm playing word games, ok whatever.