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.
Had the compliant been entirely, word for word accurate, it wasn't, it wouldn't have mattered. The bakers broke the law. It was investigated, The whole truth came out and they were fined. Nothing unfair happened here except in your mind that this law is unfair. Why must you continue to whine about the trees and ignore the forest?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.
I don't see thatA 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.
"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.
And another example of the SC refusing to undo PA laws. She took it in the shorts as well, for breaking the law.I don't see thatWas this baker asked to do that?
According to the complaint they asked for a wedding cake service, not just a cake.
"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.
It's all part of the package. This is no different than the photographer that refused to photograph a same sex wedding, they can't do it from their studio.
Had the compliant been entirely, word for word accurate, it wasn't, it wouldn't have mattered. The bakers broke the law. It was investigated, The whole truth came out and they were fined. Nothing unfair happened here except in your mind that this law is unfair. Why must you continue to whine about the trees and ignore the forest?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.
Their feelings were hurt, it's in the record, but this never would have happened had the bakers not broken the law. You believe in obeying the law, right?Had the compliant been entirely, word for word accurate, it wasn't, it wouldn't have mattered. The bakers broke the law. It was investigated, The whole truth came out and they were fined. Nothing unfair happened here except in your mind that this law is unfair. Why must you continue to whine about the trees and ignore the forest?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.
No they weren't fined, the couple was awarded $135,000 because they got their little feelings hurt.
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.
Had the compliant been entirely, word for word accurate, it wasn't, it wouldn't have mattered. The bakers broke the law. It was investigated, The whole truth came out and they were fined. Nothing unfair happened here except in your mind that this law is unfair. Why must you continue to whine about the trees and ignore the forest?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.
No they weren't fined, the couple was awarded $135,000 because they got their little feelings hurt.
And another example of the SC refusing to undo PA laws. She took it in the shorts as well, for breaking the law.I don't see thatAccording to the complaint they asked for a wedding cake service, not just a cake.
"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.
It's all part of the package. This is no different than the photographer that refused to photograph a same sex wedding, they can't do it from their studio.
Imbecile... I highlighted the salient text in your post. A "couple" is not an "individual.'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.
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?
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.
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?
Doesn't the straight couple deserve the same accomodations as the gay couple?
After all, this is about love and the want for couples to be together.
Ahhhhh, now don't that just break your poor wittle heart?
PA laws force bigots to treat protected classes fairly. I can't as it bothers me that such a thing bothers you. That's the law and you'll just have to grow up and deal with it.And another example of the SC refusing to undo PA laws. She took it in the shorts as well, for breaking the law.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.
It's all part of the package. This is no different than the photographer that refused to photograph a same sex wedding, they can't do it from their studio.
Yep, got to have that nanny state to force people to associate with others they would prefer not to. How many guys have you sued because they wouldn't go out on a date, just because they didn't want to?
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.
And where did she indicate that she was present when the Baker cited a religious belief?
View attachment 45379
PA laws force bigots to treat protected classes fairly. I can't as it bothers me that such a thing bothers you. That's the law and you'll just have to grow up and deal with it.And another example of the SC refusing to undo PA laws. She took it in the shorts as well, for breaking the law.
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.
It's all part of the package. This is no different than the photographer that refused to photograph a same sex wedding, they can't do it from their studio.
Yep, got to have that nanny state to force people to associate with others they would prefer not to. How many guys have you sued because they wouldn't go out on a date, just because they didn't want to?
So you bring up they were female and I'm playing word games, ok whatever.
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.
Or get the laws changed.
Had the compliant been entirely, word for word accurate, it wasn't, it wouldn't have mattered. The bakers broke the law. It was investigated, The whole truth came out and they were fined. Nothing unfair happened here except in your mind that this law is unfair. Why must you continue to whine about the trees and ignore the forest?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.
No they weren't fined, the couple was awarded $135,000 because they got their little feelings hurt.
Had the compliant been entirely, word for word accurate, it wasn't, it wouldn't have mattered. The bakers broke the law. It was investigated, The whole truth came out and they were fined. Nothing unfair happened here except in your mind that this law is unfair. Why must you continue to whine about the trees and ignore the forest?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.
No they weren't fined, the couple was awarded $135,000 because they got their little feelings hurt.
Just like a Christian was awarded $325,000 for religious discrimination
The BOLI Final Order awards $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering stemming directly from unlawful discrimination. The amounts are damages related to the harm suffered by the Complainants, not fines or civil penalties which are punitive in nature.
The Final Order notes that the non-economic damages are consistent with the agency’s previous orders, such as an earlier ruling against a Bend dentist In the Matter of Andrew W. Engle. In that case, BOLI awarded a Christian employee $325,000 in damages for physical, mental and emotion suffering due to religious discrimination and harassment.
So you bring up they were female and I'm playing word games, ok whatever.
Baker sells a cakes to males and females.
Baker refuses to sell cakes to males and males.
Baker refused to sell cakes to females and females.
It is the gender composition of the couple determining whether they will sell their generally offered products and services. You are to one that tried to make that statement (a failed one BTW) of material fact into "the owner didn't like females".
>>>>
Had the compliant been entirely, word for word accurate, it wasn't, it wouldn't have mattered. The bakers broke the law. It was investigated, The whole truth came out and they were fined. Nothing unfair happened here except in your mind that this law is unfair. Why must you continue to whine about the trees and ignore the forest?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.
No they weren't fined, the couple was awarded $135,000 because they got their little feelings hurt.
They were awarded it because they were found to have been discriminated against.
So you bring up they were female and I'm playing word games, ok whatever.
Baker sells a cakes to males and females.
Baker refuses to sell cakes to males and males.
Baker refused to sell cakes to females and females.
It is the gender composition of the couple determining whether they will sell their generally offered products and services. You are to one that tried to make that statement (a failed one BTW) of material fact into "the owner didn't like females".
>>>>
Since gender had nothing to do with it, why did you bring it up?
