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

[dblack]

You realize a lesbian looks at females sexually exactly the same way as males, right?

Big deal. Gay men look at men the way straight women do. Your dog won't hunt, give it up.

You think that's a compelling argument?

Gay married men can access areas that straight women cannot.

Reason why marriedgays can access areas together that married straights cannot?

Get with it dude.

This is the future you created, and we all have to deal with.

So deal with it and atop deflecting!
Bottom line: this is nothing more, or less than the lunch counter issue.

Yup. Same principle is at work.

If you operate a business that is open to the general public, you do not have the the right to refuse service to anyone based on race, religion, creed, culture, sex, or sexual orientation- period.

What about if you run a charity? Should a charity be allowed to discriminate?

The hilarious part is that they really don't believe their own rhetoric.

You can't discriminate against them based on sexuality, but when faced with the fact that millions and millions of straights are openly discriminated in the same manner daily (although we understand that this discrimination is basically good for society), they throw a hissy fit.

And still, a lesbian is similar to a married male, so theoretically, the lesbian is granted greater access then the male?

That means, basically, the theory that both are similarily situated is pure bunk.

I don't see why.

 

[ChrisL]

You realize a lesbian looks at females sexually exactly the same way as males, right?

Big deal. Gay men look at men the way straight women do. Your dog won't hunt, give it up.

You think that's a compelling argument?

Gay married men can access areas that straight women cannot.

Reason why marriedgays can access areas together that married straights cannot?

Get with it dude.

This is the future you created, and we all have to deal with.

So deal with it and atop deflecting!
Bottom line: this is nothing more, or less than the lunch counter issue.
If you operate a business that is open to the general public, you do not have the the right to refuse service to anyone based on race, religion, creed, culture, sex, or sexual orientation- period.
You've done your best for pages and pages to deflect and misdirect.
Ain't working!
Give it up!

Thank you,

Now get a grip.

That access is more than simply the lunch counter, and yes, as was the case with the lunch counter (similarily situated customers) will be with locker/showers.

Gyms are businesses.

A baker refuses a cake to a few.

Gyms refuse access to millions.

They are not refusing access to anyone, you idiot. No lesbians are not more like men. They are women, fool.

 

[ChrisL]

You realize a lesbian looks at females sexually exactly the same way as males, right?

Big deal. Gay men look at men the way straight women do. Your dog won't hunt, give it up.

You think that's a compelling argument?

Gay married men can access areas that straight women cannot.

Reason why marriedgays can access areas together that married straights cannot?

Get with it dude.

This is the future you created, and we all have to deal with.

So deal with it and atop deflecting!
Bottom line: this is nothing more, or less than the lunch counter issue.

Yup. Same principle is at work.

If you operate a business that is open to the general public, you do not have the the right to refuse service to anyone based on race, religion, creed, culture, sex, or sexual orientation- period.

What about if you run a charity? Should a charity be allowed to discriminate?

The hilarious part is that they really don't believe their own rhetoric.

You can't discriminate against them based on sexuality, but when faced with the fact that millions and millions of straights are openly discriminated in the same manner daily (although we understand that this discrimination is basically good for society), they throw a hissy fit.

And still, a lesbian is similar to a married male, so theoretically, the lesbian is granted greater access then the male?

That means, basically, the theory that both are similarily situated is pure bunk.

The hilarious part is that you have tried almost every single angle here and still fail at every turn. Any logical person can see your failure and your stupidity from a mile away.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What a retarded argument. Who said anything about couples not wanting to enter a locker room together?? Idiot... a locker room is not a service about couples. It provides a service where you can shower, change/store clothes, etc... You're demanding it provide an additional service for couples which is like demanding a kosher restaurant serve bacon. A marriage, on the other hand, is all about couples. Like I said.. it's no one else's fault you can't comprehend that.

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

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

You won the status, deal with it.

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

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

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

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

Got it yet heterophobe?

Why are you so afraid of straight people?

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

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

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

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

Can you?

A COCK.

 

[ChrisL]

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

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

You won the status, deal with it.

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

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

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

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

Got it yet heterophobe?

Why are you so afraid of straight people?

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

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

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

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

Can you?

A COCK.

Poppy needs to brush up on his anatomy.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So now it's gender composition and not gender as you previously stated. OK.

No "so now" business, I clearly said from the beginning of this exchange that it was the couple.

What I said was:

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

I never said, nor implied that AK refused service to female individuals, I clearly said it was based on LBC and RBC being a female couple.


>>>>

Rights belong to individuals, not groups.

Yes. Even gay individuals.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Over Cake

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

The problem with that scenario is finding a liberal that drinks Bud.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Amazing actually.

The bakers justified their position based on morality.

I've been pointing out that gender segregated locker rooms/gym showers/and restrooms are also based on morality.

No, they are based on tabs and slots, something even toddlers can understand so why are you unable to?

No doubt! Humans have decided after milenia of experimentation that the public restroom configuration we use today is the most practicable everywhere in the world. Gay folks have been present in that calculation the entire time.Yet now since our little corner of time and space has updated the legal definition of marriage, somehow the time honored restroom configuration is in question.

 

[ChrisL]

Amazing actually.

The bakers justified their position based on morality.

I've been pointing out that gender segregated locker rooms/gym showers/and restrooms are also based on morality.

No, they are based on tabs and slots, something even toddlers can understand so why are you unable to?

No doubt! Humans have decided after milenia of experimentation that the public restroom configuration we use today is the most practicable everywhere in the world. Gay folks have been present in that calculation the entire time.Yet now since our little corner of time and space has updated the legal definition of marriage, somehow the time honored restroom configuration is in question.

Poppy's argument is a huge fail, just like his polygamy and pedophile arguments. He's clinging to this argument as his last resort because he's run out of ideas on how to oppress the gays. I wonder if he realizes just how far off base he has come with this silliness?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Amazing actually.

The bakers justified their position based on morality.

I've been pointing out that gender segregated locker rooms/gym showers/and restrooms are also based on morality.

No, they are based on tabs and slots, something even toddlers can understand so why are you unable to?

No doubt! Humans have decided after milenia of experimentation that the public restroom configuration we use today is the most practicable everywhere in the world. Gay folks have been present in that calculation the entire time.Yet now since our little corner of time and space has updated the legal definition of marriage, somehow the time honored restroom configuration is in question.

Poppy's argument is a huge fail, just like his polygamy and pedophile arguments. He's clinging to this argument as his last resort because he's run out of ideas on how to oppress the gays. I wonder if he realizes just how far off base he has come with this silliness?

No doubt his argument has been used and ridiculed for milenia. This is nothing new for humanity. We have it right just the way it is. If there were a problem with it it would have been worked out long before us. Some people just don't learn from the past . They have to experience the fail themselves before they get it. We call them fools.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

Who freakin cares!?
Most of the posts are hateful and akin to flatulence.

I guess you didn't see who the OP is...

Personally, I am a follower of Pastafarianism - as well as the Church of the SubGenius.
All Praise Bob!

That was very augmented of you.

Do you also do diminished, or split third??

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

Who freakin cares!?
Most of the posts are hateful and akin to flatulence.

I guess you didn't see who the OP is...

The Queen of flatulance....arf arf....

You have very weird wet-dreams. Poor you.

 

[Pop23]

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

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

You won the status, deal with it.

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

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

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

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

Got it yet heterophobe?

Why are you so afraid of straight people?

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

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

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

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

Can you?

A COCK.

Oh my, and that fact creates the difference?

Gee, better call Kennedy then.

 

[Pop23]

Amazing actually.

The bakers justified their position based on morality.

I've been pointing out that gender segregated locker rooms/gym showers/and restrooms are also based on morality.

No, they are based on tabs and slots, something even toddlers can understand so why are you unable to?

No doubt! Humans have decided after milenia of experimentation that the public restroom configuration we use today is the most practicable everywhere in the world. Gay folks have been present in that calculation the entire time.Yet now since our little corner of time and space has updated the legal definition of marriage, somehow the time honored restroom configuration is in question.

Poppy's argument is a huge fail, just like his polygamy and pedophile arguments. He's clinging to this argument as his last resort because he's run out of ideas on how to oppress the gays. I wonder if he realizes just how far off base he has come with this silliness?

No doubt his argument has been used and ridiculed for milenia. This is nothing new for humanity. We have it right just the way it is. If there were a problem with it it would have been worked out long before us. Some people just don't learn from the past . They have to experience the fail themselves before they get it. We call them fools.

Yes, time stands still.

And blacks still have seperate facilities too.

 

[Pop23]

Amazing actually.

The bakers justified their position based on morality.

I've been pointing out that gender segregated locker rooms/gym showers/and restrooms are also based on morality.

No, they are based on tabs and slots, something even toddlers can understand so why are you unable to?

No doubt! Humans have decided after milenia of experimentation that the public restroom configuration we use today is the most practicable everywhere in the world. Gay folks have been present in that calculation the entire time.Yet now since our little corner of time and space has updated the legal definition of marriage, somehow the time honored restroom configuration is in question.

Gays have shared gender specific restrooms

Some felt race specific restrooms were constitutionally fine as well.

 

[Skylar]

Amazing actually.

The bakers justified their position based on morality.

I've been pointing out that gender segregated locker rooms/gym showers/and restrooms are also based on morality.

No, they are based on tabs and slots, something even toddlers can understand so why are you unable to?

No doubt! Humans have decided after milenia of experimentation that the public restroom configuration we use today is the most practicable everywhere in the world. Gay folks have been present in that calculation the entire time.Yet now since our little corner of time and space has updated the legal definition of marriage, somehow the time honored restroom configuration is in question.

Poppy's argument is a huge fail, just like his polygamy and pedophile arguments. He's clinging to this argument as his last resort because he's run out of ideas on how to oppress the gays. I wonder if he realizes just how far off base he has come with this silliness?

No doubt his argument has been used and ridiculed for milenia. This is nothing new for humanity. We have it right just the way it is. If there were a problem with it it would have been worked out long before us. Some people just don't learn from the past . They have to experience the fail themselves before they get it. We call them fools.

Yes, time stands still.

And blacks still have seperate facilities too.

And how is a ladies room not a 'full and complete accommodation'?

 

[Skylar]

Amazing actually.

The bakers justified their position based on morality.

I've been pointing out that gender segregated locker rooms/gym showers/and restrooms are also based on morality.

No, they are based on tabs and slots, something even toddlers can understand so why are you unable to?

No doubt! Humans have decided after milenia of experimentation that the public restroom configuration we use today is the most practicable everywhere in the world. Gay folks have been present in that calculation the entire time.Yet now since our little corner of time and space has updated the legal definition of marriage, somehow the time honored restroom configuration is in question.

Gays have shared gender specific restrooms

Some felt race specific restrooms were constitutionally fine as well.

Sexual orientation isn't the relative criteria in bathrooms. Gender is. You might as well be citing favorite color for as much relevance as it has to this situation.

Are you starting to see why your predictions are so consistently irrelevant to the real world? Why every single thing you insist must happen......never actually has?

 

[Statistikhengst]

So close to 3,000, choo-choo, little train!!

 

[Pop23]

No, they are based on tabs and slots, something even toddlers can understand so why are you unable to?

No doubt! Humans have decided after milenia of experimentation that the public restroom configuration we use today is the most practicable everywhere in the world. Gay folks have been present in that calculation the entire time.Yet now since our little corner of time and space has updated the legal definition of marriage, somehow the time honored restroom configuration is in question.

Poppy's argument is a huge fail, just like his polygamy and pedophile arguments. He's clinging to this argument as his last resort because he's run out of ideas on how to oppress the gays. I wonder if he realizes just how far off base he has come with this silliness?

No doubt his argument has been used and ridiculed for milenia. This is nothing new for humanity. We have it right just the way it is. If there were a problem with it it would have been worked out long before us. Some people just don't learn from the past . They have to experience the fail themselves before they get it. We call them fools.

Yes, time stands still.

And blacks still have seperate facilities too.

And how is a ladies room not a 'full and complete accommodation'?

And how was black only restrooms not a "full and compete accomodation?

 

[Pop23]

Amazing actually.

The bakers justified their position based on morality.

I've been pointing out that gender segregated locker rooms/gym showers/and restrooms are also based on morality.

No, they are based on tabs and slots, something even toddlers can understand so why are you unable to?

No doubt! Humans have decided after milenia of experimentation that the public restroom configuration we use today is the most practicable everywhere in the world. Gay folks have been present in that calculation the entire time.Yet now since our little corner of time and space has updated the legal definition of marriage, somehow the time honored restroom configuration is in question.

Gays have shared gender specific restrooms

Some felt race specific restrooms were constitutionally fine as well.

Sexual orientation isn't the relative criteria in bathrooms. Gender is. You might as well be citing favorite color for as much relevance as it has to this situation.

Are you starting to see why your predictions are so consistently irrelevant to the real world? Why every single thing you insist must happen......never actually has?

As it was with the marriage laws were gender based not sexual orientation based. Changing those that are considered "similarily situated" did not just change those eligible to marry, and so we aree back to the basic argument. Does gender matter.

Because one couple has the same reproductive organs and the other has opposite reproductive organs gives us a right to ban one, and not the other.

Is the straight couple not being discriminated against because they "were born that way"?