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

[Pop23]

So close to 3,000 postings.... 3,000 postings...

Over Cake

Imagine how long this would go over a case of Bud?

 

[Statistikhengst]

So close to 3,000 postings.... 3,000 postings...

Over Cake

Imagine how long this would go over a case of Bud?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Stop talking Pops and file your lawsuit. You've got a good case. Women's restrooms are much nicer than mens. Doors on the stalls, soap in the dispensers. It's separate but equal, Pops. Fight, fight, fight!

Oh, I don't want men in women's locker rooms, showers or bathrooms. I'm looking for the legal reasoning that it can't happen. So far I've found nothing.

You?

All I've seen is people trying to tell me that:

1. In one case a Married Lesbian is the same (similarily situated) as a Married Male.

Then, they argue that.......

2 in the other case that there is such a remarkable difference that the Male could be arrested, spend time in jail and possibly spent many years on a sex offenders list.

Remarkable isn't it?

You not understanding the problems with your own straw man does not make it our problem.

11 years- and none of your predictions have come to pass.

View attachment 45510

You do understand there are a number of both public and private facilities that have started already, right?

And it started because of the LBGTQ fight for rights.

Damn, there goes your "it will never happen" tirade.

Are you feeling all weepy now?

I have no idea what you think you are saying.

You not understanding the problems with your own straw man does not make it our problem.

11 years- and none of your predictions have come to pass.

Dude, it's already happening.
Emerson University follows disturbing trend by making restrooms gender-neutral to accommodate transgender students CBMW The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

I'll supply more links if you like?

And even college housing?U. of Missouri to implement gender-neutral housing restrooms USA TODAY College

Nope, that'll never happen!

 

[Syriusly]

Stop talking Pops and file your lawsuit. You've got a good case. Women's restrooms are much nicer than mens. Doors on the stalls, soap in the dispensers. It's separate but equal, Pops. Fight, fight, fight!

Oh, I don't want men in women's locker rooms, showers or bathrooms. I'm looking for the legal reasoning that it can't happen. So far I've found nothing.

You?

All I've seen is people trying to tell me that:

1. In one case a Married Lesbian is the same (similarily situated) as a Married Male.

Then, they argue that.......

2 in the other case that there is such a remarkable difference that the Male could be arrested, spend time in jail and possibly spent many years on a sex offenders list.

Remarkable isn't it?

You not understanding the problems with your own straw man does not make it our problem.

11 years- and none of your predictions have come to pass.

View attachment 45510

You do understand there are a number of both public and private facilities that have started already, right?

And it started because of the LBGTQ fight for rights.

Damn, there goes your "it will never happen" tirade.

Are you feeling all weepy now?

I have no idea what you think you are saying.

You not understanding the problems with your own straw man does not make it our problem.

11 years- and none of your predictions have come to pass.

Dude, it's already happening.
Emerson University follows disturbing trend by making restrooms gender-neutral to accommodate transgender students CBMW The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

I'll supply more links if you like?

And even college housing?U. of Missouri to implement gender-neutral housing restrooms USA TODAY College

Nope, that'll never happen!

Oh noes- gender neutral restrooms! I can see how this would be disturbing to you

Emerson's gender-neutral restrooms were created from previous facilities reserved for students or faculty with special needs, Haden said. Those with special needs can still use the single-unit rooms. The school's Little Building dormitory now has one gender-neutral bathroom, including a bathtub and shower, on every floor. Men and women live on each of the dorm's floors and previously had access only to separate men's and women's restrooms.


All because of gay marriage......LOL.....

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Ok, agreed. Now explain how a single complainant becomes multiple awards.

Read the documents- not our problem that this is your obsession.

Business failed to follow the law- business got penalized according to the law.

Right, the documents somebody posted excerpts from with no link, the excerpts didn't answer my question.

I posted the full document back many pages ago. If you would bother to read this your answers, including why both were awarded money, are in here: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

Thanks, that was a lot to go through.

 

[OKTexas]

Ok, agreed. Now explain how a single complainant becomes multiple awards.

The complaint was that two people were discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Two people -- two awards.

Did you read the complaint? the only complainant listed was Cryer, all the terms she used in the complaint were singular, as in "I", "me" and "my", not a single "we" in sight.

She went to buy a cake for her wedding. Not baking such a cake discriminated not only against her, but her fiance as well.

So why didn't they give an award to every other gay person in the state that were considering buying a cake, they were just as involved weren't included as complainant just like Bowman? Hell it would have made more sense to give the mother cash, at least she was there, didn't she suffer emotional distress?

The same baker already provided a service to the divorced and remarried (huge SIN Jesus himself mentioned) mother of one of the brides. Despite her "sinful" lifestyle, Sweet Cakes baked her a wedding cake. She wasn't discriminated against...just the TWO BRIDES were.

I guess your lack of knowledge of the bible, you wouldn't know that there is a recognition of the dissolution a marriage, so it's not necessarily a sin. But that isn't really relevant to the case.

What is relevant is Bowman's statement on the DOJ Consumer Complaint Form, which you claimed was just a letter, it was not. She lied her ass off on that form and it became part of the record.

I also don't understand why such a big deal was made about the form being released in public forums as the disclaimer on the form itself says it may be released to members of the public. Were the faghadist so stupid they didn't know when you start a war people are going to find out about it?

My bold

"This complaint will become part of our permanent records. Consumer complaints may be released to the business or person about whom you are complaining, members of the public or other agencies. This form is also subject to Oregon's Public Records Law."

Online Complaint Form

 

[Faun]

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.

Ok, agreed. Now explain how a single complainant becomes multiple awards.

The complaint was that two people were discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Two people -- two awards.

Did you read the complaint? the only complainant listed was Cryer, all the terms she used in the complaint were singular, as in "I", "me" and "my", not a single "we" in sight.

She went to buy a cake for her wedding. Not baking such a cake discriminated not only against her, but her fiance as well.

So why didn't they give an award to every other gay person in the state that were considering buying a cake, they were just as involved weren't included as complainant just like Bowman? Hell it would have made more sense to give the mother cash, at least she was there, didn't she suffer emotional distress?

Because they didn't deny selling a wedding cake to anyone other than those two.

 

[Faun]

Do both men and women have access to the gym and it's accommodations?

Yes, just like Jim Crow laws allowed access to all busses, they were simply required to sit in the back.

Funny, the rainbiw flag appears to be today's confederate flag.

Rally around the bigot flag ChrisL.

No, sorry, bathrooms and locker rooms are different from buses. There is a privacy factor.

To assist the mentally challaged^^^

So you would agree that white only bathrooms were also appropriate. That's how you Jim Crow types justify Separate but Equal Laws, Right?

Too retarded. What compelling reason was there in separating blacks from whites from using the same bathroom?

More Jim Crow thought

The races were given similar situated status, so restrooms were integrated

Can you name another situation were one group was granted rights, but not all rights afforded the other?

I can't.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question .... What compelling reason was there in separating blacks from whites from using the same bathroom?

 

[Seawytch]

The complaint was that two people were discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Two people -- two awards.

Did you read the complaint? the only complainant listed was Cryer, all the terms she used in the complaint were singular, as in "I", "me" and "my", not a single "we" in sight.

She went to buy a cake for her wedding. Not baking such a cake discriminated not only against her, but her fiance as well.

So why didn't they give an award to every other gay person in the state that were considering buying a cake, they were just as involved weren't included as complainant just like Bowman? Hell it would have made more sense to give the mother cash, at least she was there, didn't she suffer emotional distress?

The same baker already provided a service to the divorced and remarried (huge SIN Jesus himself mentioned) mother of one of the brides. Despite her "sinful" lifestyle, Sweet Cakes baked her a wedding cake. She wasn't discriminated against...just the TWO BRIDES were.

I guess your lack of knowledge of the bible, you wouldn't know that there is a recognition of the dissolution a marriage, so it's not necessarily a sin. But that isn't really relevant to the case.

Nice try, but Sweet Cake's religious hypocrisy is well established.

Bakery Will Do Pagan Cloning and Divorce Cakes But Not Gay Weddings Advocate.com

What is relevant is Bowman's statement on the DOJ Consumer Complaint Form, which you claimed was just a letter, it was not. She lied her ass off on that form and it became part of the record.

Nobody lied. The official complaint was filed by the individual that was present at the time. The letter penned by Laurel Bowman-Cryer.

I also don't understand why such a big deal was made about the form being released in public forums as the disclaimer on the form itself says it may be released to members of the public. Were the faghadist so stupid they didn't know when you start a war people are going to find out about it?

My bold

"This complaint will become part of our permanent records. Consumer complaints may be released to the business or person about whom you are complaining, members of the public or other agencies. This form is also subject to Oregon's Public Records Law."

Online Complaint Form

Documents released to the public are redacted. The bigots didn't redact it.

 

[Faun]

The complaint was that two people were discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Two people -- two awards.

Did you read the complaint? the only complainant listed was Cryer, all the terms she used in the complaint were singular, as in "I", "me" and "my", not a single "we" in sight.

She went to buy a cake for her wedding. Not baking such a cake discriminated not only against her, but her fiance as well.

So why didn't they give an award to every other gay person in the state that were considering buying a cake, they were just as involved weren't included as complainant just like Bowman? Hell it would have made more sense to give the mother cash, at least she was there, didn't she suffer emotional distress?

The same baker already provided a service to the divorced and remarried (huge SIN Jesus himself mentioned) mother of one of the brides. Despite her "sinful" lifestyle, Sweet Cakes baked her a wedding cake. She wasn't discriminated against...just the TWO BRIDES were.

I guess your lack of knowledge of the bible, you wouldn't know that there is a recognition of the dissolution a marriage, so it's not necessarily a sin. But that isn't really relevant to the case.

What is relevant is Bowman's statement on the DOJ Consumer Complaint Form, which you claimed was just a letter, it was not. She lied her ass off on that form and it became part of the record.

I also don't understand why such a big deal was made about the form being released in public forums as the disclaimer on the form itself says it may be released to members of the public. Were the faghadist so stupid they didn't know when you start a war people are going to find out about it?

My bold

"This complaint will become part of our permanent records. Consumer complaints may be released to the business or person about whom you are complaining, members of the public or other agencies. This form is also subject to Oregon's Public Records Law."

Online Complaint Form

She was not aware of the disclaimer.

 

[Faun]

Stop talking Pops and file your lawsuit. You've got a good case. Women's restrooms are much nicer than mens. Doors on the stalls, soap in the dispensers. It's separate but equal, Pops. Fight, fight, fight!

Oh, I don't want men in women's locker rooms, showers or bathrooms. I'm looking for the legal reasoning that it can't happen. So far I've found nothing.

You?

All I've seen is people trying to tell me that:

1. In one case a Married Lesbian is the same (similarily situated) as a Married Male.

Then, they argue that.......

2 in the other case that there is such a remarkable difference that the Male could be arrested, spend time in jail and possibly spent many years on a sex offenders list.

Remarkable isn't it?

You not understanding the problems with your own straw man does not make it our problem.

11 years- and none of your predictions have come to pass.

View attachment 45510

You do understand there are a number of both public and private facilities that have started already, right?

And it started because of the LBGTQ fight for rights.

Damn, there goes your "it will never happen" tirade.

Are you feeling all weepy now?

I have no idea what you think you are saying.

You not understanding the problems with your own straw man does not make it our problem.

11 years- and none of your predictions have come to pass.

Dude, it's already happening.
Emerson University follows disturbing trend by making restrooms gender-neutral to accommodate transgender students CBMW The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

I'll supply more links if you like?

And even college housing?U. of Missouri to implement gender-neutral housing restrooms USA TODAY College

Nope, that'll never happen!

That goes back to 2007 and has nothing to do with gay marriage. WTF is wrong with you?

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, I don't want men in women's locker rooms, showers or bathrooms. I'm looking for the legal reasoning that it can't happen. So far I've found nothing.

You?

All I've seen is people trying to tell me that:

1. In one case a Married Lesbian is the same (similarily situated) as a Married Male.

Then, they argue that.......

2 in the other case that there is such a remarkable difference that the Male could be arrested, spend time in jail and possibly spent many years on a sex offenders list.

Remarkable isn't it?

You not understanding the problems with your own straw man does not make it our problem.

11 years- and none of your predictions have come to pass.

View attachment 45510

You do understand there are a number of both public and private facilities that have started already, right?

And it started because of the LBGTQ fight for rights.

Damn, there goes your "it will never happen" tirade.

Are you feeling all weepy now?

I have no idea what you think you are saying.

You not understanding the problems with your own straw man does not make it our problem.

11 years- and none of your predictions have come to pass.

Dude, it's already happening.
Emerson University follows disturbing trend by making restrooms gender-neutral to accommodate transgender students CBMW The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

I'll supply more links if you like?

And even college housing?U. of Missouri to implement gender-neutral housing restrooms USA TODAY College

Nope, that'll never happen!

That goes back to 2007 and has nothing to do with gay marriage. WTF is wrong with you?

Pop is unhinged by Americans being allowed to marry- if they want to marry the same gender

And apparently shocked- shocked! that there exist gender neutral bathrooms- called more commonly unisex or family bathrooms.
FAMILY RESTROOMS

I guess he hasn't been out much.

FAMILY RESTROOMS

 

[OKTexas]

Did you read the complaint? the only complainant listed was Cryer, all the terms she used in the complaint were singular, as in "I", "me" and "my", not a single "we" in sight.

She went to buy a cake for her wedding. Not baking such a cake discriminated not only against her, but her fiance as well.

So why didn't they give an award to every other gay person in the state that were considering buying a cake, they were just as involved weren't included as complainant just like Bowman? Hell it would have made more sense to give the mother cash, at least she was there, didn't she suffer emotional distress?

The same baker already provided a service to the divorced and remarried (huge SIN Jesus himself mentioned) mother of one of the brides. Despite her "sinful" lifestyle, Sweet Cakes baked her a wedding cake. She wasn't discriminated against...just the TWO BRIDES were.

I guess your lack of knowledge of the bible, you wouldn't know that there is a recognition of the dissolution a marriage, so it's not necessarily a sin. But that isn't really relevant to the case.

Nice try, but Sweet Cake's religious hypocrisy is well established.

Bakery Will Do Pagan Cloning and Divorce Cakes But Not Gay Weddings Advocate.com

What is relevant is Bowman's statement on the DOJ Consumer Complaint Form, which you claimed was just a letter, it was not. She lied her ass off on that form and it became part of the record.

Nobody lied. The official complaint was filed by the individual that was present at the time. The letter penned by Laurel Bowman-Cryer.

I also don't understand why such a big deal was made about the form being released in public forums as the disclaimer on the form itself says it may be released to members of the public. Were the faghadist so stupid they didn't know when you start a war people are going to find out about it?

My bold

"This complaint will become part of our permanent records. Consumer complaints may be released to the business or person about whom you are complaining, members of the public or other agencies. This form is also subject to Oregon's Public Records Law."

Online Complaint Form

Documents released to the public are redacted. The bigots didn't redact it.

You just can't let go of the "letter" lie, can you? It was part of a formal on line complaint filed with the Oregon DOJ Consumer Protection division. Also there is nothing about information on that form being kept private.

 

[OKTexas]

Did you read the complaint? the only complainant listed was Cryer, all the terms she used in the complaint were singular, as in "I", "me" and "my", not a single "we" in sight.

She went to buy a cake for her wedding. Not baking such a cake discriminated not only against her, but her fiance as well.

So why didn't they give an award to every other gay person in the state that were considering buying a cake, they were just as involved weren't included as complainant just like Bowman? Hell it would have made more sense to give the mother cash, at least she was there, didn't she suffer emotional distress?

The same baker already provided a service to the divorced and remarried (huge SIN Jesus himself mentioned) mother of one of the brides. Despite her "sinful" lifestyle, Sweet Cakes baked her a wedding cake. She wasn't discriminated against...just the TWO BRIDES were.

I guess your lack of knowledge of the bible, you wouldn't know that there is a recognition of the dissolution a marriage, so it's not necessarily a sin. But that isn't really relevant to the case.

What is relevant is Bowman's statement on the DOJ Consumer Complaint Form, which you claimed was just a letter, it was not. She lied her ass off on that form and it became part of the record.

I also don't understand why such a big deal was made about the form being released in public forums as the disclaimer on the form itself says it may be released to members of the public. Were the faghadist so stupid they didn't know when you start a war people are going to find out about it?

My bold

"This complaint will become part of our permanent records. Consumer complaints may be released to the business or person about whom you are complaining, members of the public or other agencies. This form is also subject to Oregon's Public Records Law."

Online Complaint Form

She was not aware of the disclaimer.

Sounds like a personal problem. It was there.

 

[Seawytch]

She went to buy a cake for her wedding. Not baking such a cake discriminated not only against her, but her fiance as well.

So why didn't they give an award to every other gay person in the state that were considering buying a cake, they were just as involved weren't included as complainant just like Bowman? Hell it would have made more sense to give the mother cash, at least she was there, didn't she suffer emotional distress?

The same baker already provided a service to the divorced and remarried (huge SIN Jesus himself mentioned) mother of one of the brides. Despite her "sinful" lifestyle, Sweet Cakes baked her a wedding cake. She wasn't discriminated against...just the TWO BRIDES were.

I guess your lack of knowledge of the bible, you wouldn't know that there is a recognition of the dissolution a marriage, so it's not necessarily a sin. But that isn't really relevant to the case.

Nice try, but Sweet Cake's religious hypocrisy is well established.

Bakery Will Do Pagan Cloning and Divorce Cakes But Not Gay Weddings Advocate.com

What is relevant is Bowman's statement on the DOJ Consumer Complaint Form, which you claimed was just a letter, it was not. She lied her ass off on that form and it became part of the record.

Nobody lied. The official complaint was filed by the individual that was present at the time. The letter penned by Laurel Bowman-Cryer.

I also don't understand why such a big deal was made about the form being released in public forums as the disclaimer on the form itself says it may be released to members of the public. Were the faghadist so stupid they didn't know when you start a war people are going to find out about it?

My bold

"This complaint will become part of our permanent records. Consumer complaints may be released to the business or person about whom you are complaining, members of the public or other agencies. This form is also subject to Oregon's Public Records Law."

Online Complaint Form

Documents released to the public are redacted. The bigots didn't redact it.

You just can't let go of the "letter" lie, can you? It was part of a formal on line complaint filed with the Oregon DOJ Consumer Protection division. Also there is nothing about information on that form being kept private.

No it wasn't. The formal complaint came from Rachel, not Lauel. Laurel wrote a letter to the Oregon DOJ, Rachel (who was present) filed the complaint.

You're not exposing anything Sherlock-wanna-be.

A document released to someone outside the parties involved is redacted. If the document had been released to a private individual under a public records request, it would have been redacted. The bigots didn't redact.

 

[Faun]

She went to buy a cake for her wedding. Not baking such a cake discriminated not only against her, but her fiance as well.

So why didn't they give an award to every other gay person in the state that were considering buying a cake, they were just as involved weren't included as complainant just like Bowman? Hell it would have made more sense to give the mother cash, at least she was there, didn't she suffer emotional distress?

The same baker already provided a service to the divorced and remarried (huge SIN Jesus himself mentioned) mother of one of the brides. Despite her "sinful" lifestyle, Sweet Cakes baked her a wedding cake. She wasn't discriminated against...just the TWO BRIDES were.

I guess your lack of knowledge of the bible, you wouldn't know that there is a recognition of the dissolution a marriage, so it's not necessarily a sin. But that isn't really relevant to the case.

What is relevant is Bowman's statement on the DOJ Consumer Complaint Form, which you claimed was just a letter, it was not. She lied her ass off on that form and it became part of the record.

I also don't understand why such a big deal was made about the form being released in public forums as the disclaimer on the form itself says it may be released to members of the public. Were the faghadist so stupid they didn't know when you start a war people are going to find out about it?

My bold

"This complaint will become part of our permanent records. Consumer complaints may be released to the business or person about whom you are complaining, members of the public or other agencies. This form is also subject to Oregon's Public Records Law."

Online Complaint Form

She was not aware of the disclaimer.

Sounds like a personal problem. It was there.

Nope. It wasn't a personal problem. It wasn't available to her.

 

[OKTexas]

So why didn't they give an award to every other gay person in the state that were considering buying a cake, they were just as involved weren't included as complainant just like Bowman? Hell it would have made more sense to give the mother cash, at least she was there, didn't she suffer emotional distress?

The same baker already provided a service to the divorced and remarried (huge SIN Jesus himself mentioned) mother of one of the brides. Despite her "sinful" lifestyle, Sweet Cakes baked her a wedding cake. She wasn't discriminated against...just the TWO BRIDES were.

I guess your lack of knowledge of the bible, you wouldn't know that there is a recognition of the dissolution a marriage, so it's not necessarily a sin. But that isn't really relevant to the case.

What is relevant is Bowman's statement on the DOJ Consumer Complaint Form, which you claimed was just a letter, it was not. She lied her ass off on that form and it became part of the record.

I also don't understand why such a big deal was made about the form being released in public forums as the disclaimer on the form itself says it may be released to members of the public. Were the faghadist so stupid they didn't know when you start a war people are going to find out about it?

My bold

"This complaint will become part of our permanent records. Consumer complaints may be released to the business or person about whom you are complaining, members of the public or other agencies. This form is also subject to Oregon's Public Records Law."

Online Complaint Form

She was not aware of the disclaimer.

Sounds like a personal problem. It was there.

Nope. It wasn't a personal problem. It wasn't available to her.

Who kept it from her, oh right, the device SHE chose to use. Also ignorance of the disclaimer does not release her from the conditions set out in it.

 

[OKTexas]

So why didn't they give an award to every other gay person in the state that were considering buying a cake, they were just as involved weren't included as complainant just like Bowman? Hell it would have made more sense to give the mother cash, at least she was there, didn't she suffer emotional distress?

The same baker already provided a service to the divorced and remarried (huge SIN Jesus himself mentioned) mother of one of the brides. Despite her "sinful" lifestyle, Sweet Cakes baked her a wedding cake. She wasn't discriminated against...just the TWO BRIDES were.

I guess your lack of knowledge of the bible, you wouldn't know that there is a recognition of the dissolution a marriage, so it's not necessarily a sin. But that isn't really relevant to the case.

Nice try, but Sweet Cake's religious hypocrisy is well established.

Bakery Will Do Pagan Cloning and Divorce Cakes But Not Gay Weddings Advocate.com

What is relevant is Bowman's statement on the DOJ Consumer Complaint Form, which you claimed was just a letter, it was not. She lied her ass off on that form and it became part of the record.

Nobody lied. The official complaint was filed by the individual that was present at the time. The letter penned by Laurel Bowman-Cryer.

I also don't understand why such a big deal was made about the form being released in public forums as the disclaimer on the form itself says it may be released to members of the public. Were the faghadist so stupid they didn't know when you start a war people are going to find out about it?

My bold

"This complaint will become part of our permanent records. Consumer complaints may be released to the business or person about whom you are complaining, members of the public or other agencies. This form is also subject to Oregon's Public Records Law."

Online Complaint Form

Documents released to the public are redacted. The bigots didn't redact it.

You just can't let go of the "letter" lie, can you? It was part of a formal on line complaint filed with the Oregon DOJ Consumer Protection division. Also there is nothing about information on that form being kept private.

No it wasn't. The formal complaint came from Rachel, not Lauel. Laurel wrote a letter to the Oregon DOJ, Rachel (who was present) filed the complaint.

You're not exposing anything Sherlock-wanna-be.

A document released to someone outside the parties involved is redacted. If the document had been released to a private individual under a public records request, it would have been redacted. The bigots didn't redact.

According to the final decision, Bowman filed a formal complaint with the BOLI in Nov 2013 almost 3 months after Cryer's Aug 2013 filing. So far I cant't find a copy of it.

 

[ChrisL]

The complaint was that two people were discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Two people -- two awards.

Did you read the complaint? the only complainant listed was Cryer, all the terms she used in the complaint were singular, as in "I", "me" and "my", not a single "we" in sight.

She went to buy a cake for her wedding. Not baking such a cake discriminated not only against her, but her fiance as well.

So why didn't they give an award to every other gay person in the state that were considering buying a cake, they were just as involved weren't included as complainant just like Bowman? Hell it would have made more sense to give the mother cash, at least she was there, didn't she suffer emotional distress?

The same baker already provided a service to the divorced and remarried (huge SIN Jesus himself mentioned) mother of one of the brides. Despite her "sinful" lifestyle, Sweet Cakes baked her a wedding cake. She wasn't discriminated against...just the TWO BRIDES were.

I guess your lack of knowledge of the bible, you wouldn't know that there is a recognition of the dissolution a marriage, so it's not necessarily a sin. But that isn't really relevant to the case.

What is relevant is Bowman's statement on the DOJ Consumer Complaint Form, which you claimed was just a letter, it was not. She lied her ass off on that form and it became part of the record.

I also don't understand why such a big deal was made about the form being released in public forums as the disclaimer on the form itself says it may be released to members of the public. Were the faghadist so stupid they didn't know when you start a war people are going to find out about it?

My bold

"This complaint will become part of our permanent records. Consumer complaints may be released to the business or person about whom you are complaining, members of the public or other agencies. This form is also subject to Oregon's Public Records Law."

Online Complaint Form

It's not a sin, huh? That's funny. Right, it's not a sin if you remain alone and abstinent for the rest of your days, correct?

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, just like Jim Crow laws allowed access to all busses, they were simply required to sit in the back.

Funny, the rainbiw flag appears to be today's confederate flag.

Rally around the bigot flag ChrisL.

No, sorry, bathrooms and locker rooms are different from buses. There is a privacy factor.

To assist the mentally challaged^^^

So you would agree that white only bathrooms were also appropriate. That's how you Jim Crow types justify Separate but Equal Laws, Right?

Too retarded. What compelling reason was there in separating blacks from whites from using the same bathroom?

More Jim Crow thought

The races were given similar situated status, so restrooms were integrated

Can you name another situation were one group was granted rights, but not all rights afforded the other?

I can't.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question .... What compelling reason was there in separating blacks from whites from using the same bathroom?

Oh, he doesn't know what the hell is going on anymore. He just has a serious problem with gay people, obviously. It makes one wonder, it really does. SMH.