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

[Syriusly]

And where did she indicate that she was present when the Baker cited a religious belief?
View attachment 45379

I'm sorry you can't keep up, Bowman wrote the LETTER, Cryer filed the COMPLAINT which was constructed by a lawyer. Bowman claimed in her letter that Cryer left the bakery when the baker stated they didn't do cakes for SSM's. The religious statements, according to Bowman's LETTER, occurred when Cryer's mother returned to talk to Klein, neither Bowman or Cryer were present at that time.

No- I really can't keep up with your whining.

Feel free to provide the quote where you claim she is lying.

So far all I have seen is you whining.

Go back and read Bowman's letter keeping in mind she wasn't there. I'm not going to repost it.

In other words you can't find an actual quote.

From post # 2567, the letter penned by Bowman:

(my bolds)

"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."

Now tell me she didn't lie? "We" meaning Bowman and Cryer didn't go to their cake tasting, Cryer and her mother did, Bowman was NOT THERE!

No lie there at all. The 'we' referenced here:

• When we decided to get married ourselves chose to back and purchase a second cake.

Refers to Bowman and her fiance.

You really are desperate to find what is not there.

The 'we' referenced' here are Cryer and her mother.

• 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.

Then she refers to the owner- referring to her and her fiance here:

• 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

Then she refers to herself and her fiance

• We were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiancé reduced to tears.

Clumsy- but there is nothing factually incorrect here, nor does she appear to be attempting to mislead anyone- which is what a lie would have to be.

The facts are all correct.

You just want something to whine about.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

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?

Pop's meltdown continues......I wonder how many years he will mourn gay couples being able to marry?

I do feel sorry for you.

Time will tell I guess.

So Syriuosly, been able to come up with the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married straight Male yet?

Pop still trying to find someone to participate in his meltdown and sorrow that gays can legally marry- with his ongoing predictions

 

[OKTexas]

Go back and read Bowman's letter keeping in mind she wasn't there. I'm not going to repost it.

In other words you can't find an actual quote.

From post # 2567, the letter penned by Bowman:

(my bolds)

"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."

Now tell me she didn't lie? "We" meaning Bowman and Cryer didn't go to their cake tasting, Cryer and her mother did, Bowman was NOT THERE!

You realize that's not the formal complaint, right? That was a letter one of the injured parties penned. She was still discriminated against despite not being present.

Are you slow or what? Did I say it was the formal complaint? I was answering another posters question. Why did Bowman not file a formal complaint? And tell me how this works, being discriminated against in absentia. Should they give money to every gay person in the State who also wasn't there? Also explain how you're awarded money when you're not a plaintiff?

You initially called it perjury. There was no perjury since the formal complaint came from the individual present at the time.

She was a plaintiff. She was still discriminated against even though she wasn't present. It was her wedding cake.

No Bowman wasn't a plaintiff, if you read the complaint (not the letter), Cryer only used I, me, my, not a we in sight and show me where Bowman was listed on the complaint as a plaintiff or complainant. Also from what you posted I thought the letter was the complaint, had it been it would have been perjury, because it wasn't truthful, are you ready to admit that?

 

[OKTexas]

I'm sorry you can't keep up, Bowman wrote the LETTER, Cryer filed the COMPLAINT which was constructed by a lawyer. Bowman claimed in her letter that Cryer left the bakery when the baker stated they didn't do cakes for SSM's. The religious statements, according to Bowman's LETTER, occurred when Cryer's mother returned to talk to Klein, neither Bowman or Cryer were present at that time.

No- I really can't keep up with your whining.

Feel free to provide the quote where you claim she is lying.

So far all I have seen is you whining.

Go back and read Bowman's letter keeping in mind she wasn't there. I'm not going to repost it.

In other words you can't find an actual quote.

From post # 2567, the letter penned by Bowman:

(my bolds)

"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."

Now tell me she didn't lie? "We" meaning Bowman and Cryer didn't go to their cake tasting, Cryer and her mother did, Bowman was NOT THERE!

No lie there at all. The 'we' referenced here:

• When we decided to get married ourselves chose to back and purchase a second cake.

Refers to Bowman and her fiance.

You really are desperate to find what is not there.

The 'we' referenced' here are Cryer and her mother.

• 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.

Then she refers to the owner- referring to her and her fiance here:

• 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

Then she refers to herself and her fiance

• We were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiancé reduced to tears.

Clumsy- but there is nothing factually incorrect here, nor does she appear to be attempting to mislead anyone- which is what a lie would have to be.

The facts are all correct.

You just want something to whine about.

Are you dizzy yet from all that spin. An honest author doesn't use "we" when they are not included, it would be "they", maybe you should go back to your remedial ESL class teacher and have them explain it to ya.

 

[Faun]

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?

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?

Deserve what? Other than marriage and contracts, laws don't generally apply to couples.

 

[Syriusly]

No- I really can't keep up with your whining.

Feel free to provide the quote where you claim she is lying.

So far all I have seen is you whining.

Go back and read Bowman's letter keeping in mind she wasn't there. I'm not going to repost it.

In other words you can't find an actual quote.

From post # 2567, the letter penned by Bowman:

(my bolds)

"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."

Now tell me she didn't lie? "We" meaning Bowman and Cryer didn't go to their cake tasting, Cryer and her mother did, Bowman was NOT THERE!

No lie there at all. The 'we' referenced here:

• When we decided to get married ourselves chose to back and purchase a second cake.

Refers to Bowman and her fiance.

You really are desperate to find what is not there.

The 'we' referenced' here are Cryer and her mother.

• 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.

Then she refers to the owner- referring to her and her fiance here:

• 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

Then she refers to herself and her fiance

• We were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiancé reduced to tears.

Clumsy- but there is nothing factually incorrect here, nor does she appear to be attempting to mislead anyone- which is what a lie would have to be.

The facts are all correct.

You just want something to whine about.

Are you dizzy yet from all that spin. An honest author doesn't use "we" when they are not included, it would be "they", maybe you should go back to your remedial ESL class teacher and have them explain it to ya.

As I said- it was clumsy- but there is not an identifiable falsehood in the entire document- and certainly nothing that is an attempt to deceive.

You just want something to whine about.

 

[OKTexas]

Go back and read Bowman's letter keeping in mind she wasn't there. I'm not going to repost it.

In other words you can't find an actual quote.

From post # 2567, the letter penned by Bowman:

(my bolds)

"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."

Now tell me she didn't lie? "We" meaning Bowman and Cryer didn't go to their cake tasting, Cryer and her mother did, Bowman was NOT THERE!

You realize that's not the formal complaint, right? That was a letter one of the injured parties penned. She was still discriminated against despite not being present.

Are you slow or what? Did I say it was the formal complaint? I was answering another posters question. Why did Bowman not file a formal complaint? And tell me how this works, being discriminated against in absentia. Should they give money to every gay person in the State who also wasn't there? Also explain how you're awarded money when you're not a plaintiff?

You initially called it perjury. There was no perjury since the formal complaint came from the individual present at the time.

She was a plaintiff. She was still discriminated against even though she wasn't present. It was her wedding cake.

So far you have posted nothing proving Bowman was listed as a complainant or plaintiff, you have seen the complaint where ONLY Cryer was listed as the complainant, and she only used singular terms throughout her statement.

 

[Faun]

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?

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.

How could Bowman be discriminated against when she wasn't there? Yet they gave her $60,000 and she got a free cake.

The awards were for emotional distress, which they both suffered. Not only for the discrimination; but also from the death threats they both received after Aaron Klein posted their full names and addresses on social media.

"The Agency's [BOLI] theory of liability is that since Respondents brought the case to the media's attention and kept it there by repeatedly appearing in public to make statements deriding Complainants, it was foreseeable that this attention would negatively impact Complainants, making Respondents liable for any resultant emotional suffering experienced by Complainants. The Agency also argues that Respondents are liable for negative third party social media directed at Complainants because it was a foreseeable consequence of media attention."​

 

[Syriusly]

Bottom line- business's have to follow the law.

If you choose not to follow the law that apply to your business you risk the penalties as provided by that law.

 

[Seawytch]

Go back and read Bowman's letter keeping in mind she wasn't there. I'm not going to repost it.

In other words you can't find an actual quote.

From post # 2567, the letter penned by Bowman:

(my bolds)

"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."

Now tell me she didn't lie? "We" meaning Bowman and Cryer didn't go to their cake tasting, Cryer and her mother did, Bowman was NOT THERE!

No lie there at all. The 'we' referenced here:

• When we decided to get married ourselves chose to back and purchase a second cake.

Refers to Bowman and her fiance.

You really are desperate to find what is not there.

The 'we' referenced' here are Cryer and her mother.

• 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.

Then she refers to the owner- referring to her and her fiance here:

• 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

Then she refers to herself and her fiance

• We were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiancé reduced to tears.

Clumsy- but there is nothing factually incorrect here, nor does she appear to be attempting to mislead anyone- which is what a lie would have to be.

The facts are all correct.

You just want something to whine about.

Are you dizzy yet from all that spin. An honest author doesn't use "we" when they are not included, it would be "they", maybe you should go back to your remedial ESL class teacher and have them explain it to ya.

As I said- it was clumsy- but there is not an identifiable falsehood in the entire document- and certainly nothing that is an attempt to deceive.

You just want something to whine about.

Besides, it wasn't the formal complaint. That was filed by the individual present.

Does OK really think he found some legal loophole nobody else found?

 

[Faun]

No- I really can't keep up with your whining.

Feel free to provide the quote where you claim she is lying.

So far all I have seen is you whining.

Go back and read Bowman's letter keeping in mind she wasn't there. I'm not going to repost it.

In other words you can't find an actual quote.

From post # 2567, the letter penned by Bowman:

(my bolds)

"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."

Now tell me she didn't lie? "We" meaning Bowman and Cryer didn't go to their cake tasting, Cryer and her mother did, Bowman was NOT THERE!

You realize that's not the formal complaint, right? That was a letter one of the injured parties penned. She was still discriminated against despite not being present.

Are you slow or what? Did I say it was the formal complaint? I was answering another posters question. Why did Bowman not file a formal complaint? And tell me how this works, being discriminated against in absentia. Should they give money to every gay person in the State who also wasn't there? Also explain how you're awarded money when you're not a plaintiff?

Cryer did receive a larger award since she was present at the time the discrimination initially took place.

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.​

 

[OKTexas]

Go back and read Bowman's letter keeping in mind she wasn't there. I'm not going to repost it.

In other words you can't find an actual quote.

From post # 2567, the letter penned by Bowman:

(my bolds)

"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."

Now tell me she didn't lie? "We" meaning Bowman and Cryer didn't go to their cake tasting, Cryer and her mother did, Bowman was NOT THERE!

No lie there at all. The 'we' referenced here:

• When we decided to get married ourselves chose to back and purchase a second cake.

Refers to Bowman and her fiance.

You really are desperate to find what is not there.

The 'we' referenced' here are Cryer and her mother.

• 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.

Then she refers to the owner- referring to her and her fiance here:

• 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

Then she refers to herself and her fiance

• We were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiancé reduced to tears.

Clumsy- but there is nothing factually incorrect here, nor does she appear to be attempting to mislead anyone- which is what a lie would have to be.

The facts are all correct.

You just want something to whine about.

Are you dizzy yet from all that spin. An honest author doesn't use "we" when they are not included, it would be "they", maybe you should go back to your remedial ESL class teacher and have them explain it to ya.

As I said- it was clumsy- but there is not an identifiable falsehood in the entire document- and certainly nothing that is an attempt to deceive.

You just want something to whine about.

I'm sorry you can't read plain English.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

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.

How could Bowman be discriminated against when she wasn't there? Yet they gave her $60,000 and she got a free cake.

The awards were for emotional distress, which they both suffered. Not only for the discrimination; but also from the death threats they both received after Aaron Klein posted their full names and addresses on social media.

"The Agency's [BOLI] theory of liability is that since Respondents brought the case to the media's attention and kept it there by repeatedly appearing in public to make statements deriding Complainants, it was foreseeable that this attention would negatively impact Complainants, making Respondents liable for any resultant emotional suffering experienced by Complainants. The Agency also argues that Respondents are liable for negative third party social media directed at Complainants because it was a foreseeable consequence of media attention."​

Link, I want to see how a single complainant magically became multiple complainants. Since when are you responsible for the actions of a third party that you have no control over? I'm glad I don't live in a fucked up state like that.

 

[OKTexas]

Go back and read Bowman's letter keeping in mind she wasn't there. I'm not going to repost it.

In other words you can't find an actual quote.

From post # 2567, the letter penned by Bowman:

(my bolds)

"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."

Now tell me she didn't lie? "We" meaning Bowman and Cryer didn't go to their cake tasting, Cryer and her mother did, Bowman was NOT THERE!

You realize that's not the formal complaint, right? That was a letter one of the injured parties penned. She was still discriminated against despite not being present.

Are you slow or what? Did I say it was the formal complaint? I was answering another posters question. Why did Bowman not file a formal complaint? And tell me how this works, being discriminated against in absentia. Should they give money to every gay person in the State who also wasn't there? Also explain how you're awarded money when you're not a plaintiff?

Cryer did receive a larger award since she was present at the time the discrimination initially took place.

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.​

I'm still trying to figure out how you can be harmed or discriminated against in absentia.

 

[OKTexas]

In other words you can't find an actual quote.

From post # 2567, the letter penned by Bowman:

(my bolds)

"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."

Now tell me she didn't lie? "We" meaning Bowman and Cryer didn't go to their cake tasting, Cryer and her mother did, Bowman was NOT THERE!

No lie there at all. The 'we' referenced here:

• When we decided to get married ourselves chose to back and purchase a second cake.

Refers to Bowman and her fiance.

You really are desperate to find what is not there.

The 'we' referenced' here are Cryer and her mother.

• 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.

Then she refers to the owner- referring to her and her fiance here:

• 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

Then she refers to herself and her fiance

• We were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiancé reduced to tears.

Clumsy- but there is nothing factually incorrect here, nor does she appear to be attempting to mislead anyone- which is what a lie would have to be.

The facts are all correct.

You just want something to whine about.

Are you dizzy yet from all that spin. An honest author doesn't use "we" when they are not included, it would be "they", maybe you should go back to your remedial ESL class teacher and have them explain it to ya.

As I said- it was clumsy- but there is not an identifiable falsehood in the entire document- and certainly nothing that is an attempt to deceive.

You just want something to whine about.

Besides, it wasn't the formal complaint. That was filed by the individual present.

Does OK really think he found some legal loophole nobody else found?

You keep beating that same old dead horse even though it's been established the two documents are separate. That's just pure stupidity.

 

[dblack]

Bottom line- business's have to follow the law.

If you choose not to follow the law that apply to your business you risk the penalties as provided by that law.

Bottom line - the law is overbearing and fascist. Fight the power.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Pop's meltdown continues......I wonder how many years he will mourn gay couples being able to marry?

I do feel sorry for you.

Time will tell I guess.

So Syriuosly, been able to come up with the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married straight Male yet?

Pop still trying to find someone to participate in his meltdown and sorrow that gays can legally marry- with his ongoing predictions

You would think someone could defend the false premise that same sex couples are similarily situated when I've proven the opposite to be true?

Guess either the can't or they agree but can't bring themselves to admit the fraud?

 

[Pop23]

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?

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?

Deserve what? Other than marriage and contracts, laws don't generally apply to couples.

Except when they claim they are all similarily situated.

You go on and create rainbow Jim crow laws just like those opposed to black rights.

Have you yet to come up with that remarkable difference between a lesbian and a Married Male yet?

Funny you can't, it seems obvious.

 

[Seawytch]

From post # 2567, the letter penned by Bowman:

(my bolds)

Now tell me she didn't lie? "We" meaning Bowman and Cryer didn't go to their cake tasting, Cryer and her mother did, Bowman was NOT THERE!

No lie there at all. The 'we' referenced here:

• When we decided to get married ourselves chose to back and purchase a second cake.

Refers to Bowman and her fiance.

You really are desperate to find what is not there.

The 'we' referenced' here are Cryer and her mother.

• 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.

Then she refers to the owner- referring to her and her fiance here:

• 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

Then she refers to herself and her fiance

• We were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiancé reduced to tears.

Clumsy- but there is nothing factually incorrect here, nor does she appear to be attempting to mislead anyone- which is what a lie would have to be.

The facts are all correct.

You just want something to whine about.

Are you dizzy yet from all that spin. An honest author doesn't use "we" when they are not included, it would be "they", maybe you should go back to your remedial ESL class teacher and have them explain it to ya.

As I said- it was clumsy- but there is not an identifiable falsehood in the entire document- and certainly nothing that is an attempt to deceive.

You just want something to whine about.

Besides, it wasn't the formal complaint. That was filed by the individual present.

Does OK really think he found some legal loophole nobody else found?

You keep beating that same old dead horse even though it's been established the two documents are separate. That's just pure stupidity.

Except it's you beating a dead horse. The only document that matters is the official complaint...which was filed by the individual present at the time the discrimination took place.

 

[Seawytch]

Bottom line- business's have to follow the law.

If you choose not to follow the law that apply to your business you risk the penalties as provided by that law.

Bottom line - the law is overbearing and fascist. Fight the power.

Uh huh...Let us know when you've called your representatives about getting rid of that 1964 Civil Rights Act...