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

[Statistikhengst]

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

I don't think that is annoying. I find neo Nazis annoying

So you hate progressives.

I do too.

You are a proud Nazi no doubt.

Nazis are traditionally supported and funded by progressives. So...nope. Bullies who prey upon the vulnerable, lie to attain power, and kill off their enemies...that's all you baby.

You are one massive nut case.

"

• H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”

• The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”

• The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”

• Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”

• McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”

• After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”

• Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”

• NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”

• FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”

• New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”

• Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.

According to Goldberg, progressives' affinity for fascism was quite understandable because, contrary to popular misconception: “[F]ascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left.”

Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks

Great copy and paste job!

Now, sit!

Good Kisherthingy!

Now, roll over!!!

Suche a fine RW sheeple!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[eagle7_31]

Batshittians 3:42: "Because it was destiny that sweet cakes, Jeebus and 'ghey' would all belong within the same sentence one day in the land of Or, for the holy Spaghetti Monster foresaw it all with his longest noodle."​

Sweet Cakes final order Gresham bakery must pay 135 000 for denying service to same-sex couple OregonLive.com

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian on Thursday ordered the owners of a former Gresham bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake.

Avakian's ruling upheld a preliminary finding earlier this year that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had discriminated against the women on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in denying service. The case ignited a long-running skirmish in the nation's culture wars, pitting civil rights advocates against religious freedom proponents who argued business owners should have the right to refuse services for gay and lesbian weddings.

Avakian's final order makes clear that serving potential customers equally trumps the Kleins' religious beliefs. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said in a news release.

"This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

"Within Oregon's public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, when do the cries of evil, evil, evil ZOG persecution begin?
And when will this all be Obama's fault?
And when does the GoFundMe account go up?
Anyone know how much delicious icing 135 K can buy?

No mudslinging, folks! But you may throw delicious icing.

Most likely fine will be reduced or eliminated on appeal.

 

[koshergrl]

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

What are you talking about? Gay marriage was already legal in 37 states.

only because of the lawyers.....the courts....

big difference from what The People wanted....even gay Callyfornia voted against gay marriage....

Wrong again, most people wanted it too...

Civil Rights

Liar liar pants on fire.

Are you saying that gays aren't people?

How racist of you!

 

[koshergrl]

So you hate progressives.

I do too.

You are a proud Nazi no doubt.

Nazis are traditionally supported and funded by progressives. So...nope. Bullies who prey upon the vulnerable, lie to attain power, and kill off their enemies...that's all you baby.

You are one massive nut case.

"

• H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”

• The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”

• The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”

• Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”

• McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”

• After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”

• Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”

• NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”

• FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”

• New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”

• Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.

According to Goldberg, progressives' affinity for fascism was quite understandable because, contrary to popular misconception: “[F]ascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left.”

Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks

Great copy and paste job!

Now, sit!

Good Kisherthingy!

Now, roll over!!!

Suche a fine RW sheeple!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Seriously, the high pitched squealing gets old...

 

[Statistikhengst]

On what grounds do you purport polygamy should be legal?

If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.

You?

If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.

I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.


If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.


You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

Those votes happened in what year mostly? I'll give you a hint...pick a number between 2000 and 2008...

(FYI...it's 2015)

Polls are not to be trusted.......votes are much more reliable....

She's talking about votes, Dimwit.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[koshergrl]

If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.

You?

If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.

I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.


If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.


You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

Those votes happened in what year mostly? I'll give you a hint...pick a number between 2000 and 2008...

(FYI...it's 2015)

Polls are not to be trusted.......votes are much more reliable....

She's talking about votes, Dimwit.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

No, she's not.

 

[Faun]

Those votes happened in what year mostly? I'll give you a hint...pick a number between 2000 and 2008...

(FYI...it's 2015)

Polls are not to be trusted.......votes are much more reliable....

The polls all said Romney was losing. That you believed Karl Rove is not the fault of the polls.

You don't get to vote on Civil Rights.

then i guess we don't need that Civil Rights Act anymore since nobody 'gets to vote on Civil Rights"........hahaha....we'll just leave it all up to those know-it-all lawyers....

I said YOU don't.

How would you like your 2nd Amendment rights put up for a majority vote?

if you want to amend the Constitution on that....go ahead and try.....good luck....

there is nothing in the Constittuion about gay marriage....and pls don't cite the 14th....that never had anything to do about gay marriage....

No need to amend the Constitution ... gay marriage is already the law of the land. And if you don't understand how the 14th Amendment factors in, then you have no business debating the topic as you are clearly out of your league.

 

[Seawytch]

Those votes happened in what year mostly? I'll give you a hint...pick a number between 2000 and 2008...

(FYI...it's 2015)

Polls are not to be trusted.......votes are much more reliable....

The polls all said Romney was losing. That you believed Karl Rove is not the fault of the polls.

You don't get to vote on Civil Rights.

then i guess we don't need that Civil Rights Act anymore since nobody 'gets to vote on Civil Rights"........hahaha....we'll just leave it all up to those know-it-all lawyers....

I said YOU don't.

How would you like your 2nd Amendment rights put up for a majority vote?

if you want to amend the Constitution on that....go ahead and try.....good luck....

there is nothing in the Constittuion about gay marriage....and pls don't cite the 14th....that never had anything to do about gay marriage....

Sorry but the fundamental right to marry has been found. No Amendment needed.

So I'll ask again. Would you like to have your 2nd Amendment rights put up for a majority vote?

 

[Faun]

No siblings can marry ... the law is applied equally to everyone.

LOL, suddenly you get that, you didn't when straights couldn't marry the same sex either

That's because the law was not applied equally for gays.

It wasn't? Straight people can marry the same sex? I think you're wrong on that

Flaming imbecile, straight people had the right to marry the person they love. How do you still not get this?

Yes, "who they love." Laws are always based on what you want. That's the way our legal system works. And you call me the "flaming imbecile?"

I am a vegetarian except I eat fish. So can I fish during hunting season? I don't want to eat game, just fish. They have to accommodate me, don't they?

It really is no one's fault but your own that you don't know the primary reason for getting married is to make a life long commitment to the person you love. That's why it's a fundamental right towards the inalienable right to pursue happiness.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.


If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.


You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

We really are not that ambitious. Silencing Christians is damn near impossible. Our goals are more modest.

Your handlers depend on your stupidity.

Now, don't be coy, KG, you know that you have a crush on me!

I do like my men nice and stupid, it's true.

So, you are saying you like to be equally yoked, eh?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[koshergrl]

Oh I see, we're going to debate "feelings" now. That's so much more effective than citing facts and quoting members of the SCOTUS, lol.

 

[Faun]

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

What are you talking about? Gay marriage was already legal in 37 states.

only because of the lawyers.....the courts....

big difference from what The People wanted....even gay Callyfornia voted against gay marriage....

Nope, the people wanted it too...

Civil Rights

How sad, and lame. Blacks are not queer.

Faun is queer, it's on his avatar

Nah. Not only am I devout heterosexual, I'm more straight than you. According to you, there are situations in your marriage which make you the wife.

But even funnier, if you think my avatar means I'm gay, then yours means you're a woman. koshergirl's avatar means she's a dog.

See what a flaming imbecile you are?

 

[Pop23]

Wow, the traditional viewpoint. The argument is then that marriage should be denied, because one partner may be dominant over the other, or in this case others.

Where in the marriage law is it stated that no partner may choose to be dominated, or that you may not assume a submissive role in a marriage?

And, using the classic, traditional role of plural marriage would deny due process to those that may desire a plural marriage that traditional "morals" are simply absurd to apply to them.

Example, three brothers wish to marry so two of them can inherit the thirds farm when he dies and not pay the inheritance tax. They are all straight. what legal reasoning is there to deny them equal protection and due process if all agree to the arrangement?

On what grounds do you purport polygamy should be legal?

If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.

You?

If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.

I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.


If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.


You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL

None of what you posted would meet the equal protection clause nor due process. You simply want them banned without a compelling state reason.

That's dangerous dear.

You really don't understand logic, do you dear?

I didn't say I wanted anything banned, dear. Poor little dingbat that you are. I was offering a logical rationale for why society accepts certain things and not others--an historical perspective and an observation about how societies and cultures evolve. Obviously it was way over your silly little featherhead.

Your deflection is silly, why would I care about anything you write if it didn't apply to legalization and supporting legal argument?

So????

 

[Pop23]

On what grounds do you purport polygamy should be legal?

If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.

You?

If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.

I see no grounds since the law is applied equally to all.

Sorry faun, two same sex brothers can't marry. They are banned, you like arbitrary law? Or do you see benefit in allowing limited access?

No siblings can marry ... the law is applied equally to everyone.

Why? There must be a reason

Bump Faun

Why no answer?

 

[Faun]

What are you talking about? Gay marriage was already legal in 37 states.

only because of the lawyers.....the courts....

big difference from what The People wanted....even gay Callyfornia voted against gay marriage....

Nope, the people wanted it too...

Civil Rights

How sad, and lame. Blacks are not queer.

Faun is queer, it's on his avatar

True, but the two terms are not synonymous. His link referenced black civil rights...not slimy ass pilots.

You're another flaming imbecile. My link contained a bunch of poll results regarding gay marriage.

 

[koshergrl]

only because of the lawyers.....the courts....

big difference from what The People wanted....even gay Callyfornia voted against gay marriage....

Nope, the people wanted it too...

Civil Rights

How sad, and lame. Blacks are not queer.

Faun is queer, it's on his avatar

True, but the two terms are not synonymous. His link referenced black civil rights...not slimy ass pilots.

You're another flaming imbecile. My link contained a bunch of poll results regarding gay marriage.

Pretending homo privileges are the same thing as civil rights.

And that polls are *votes*, lol.

 

[Faun]

If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.

You?

If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.

I see no grounds since the law is applied equally to all.

Sorry faun, two same sex brothers can't marry. They are banned, you like arbitrary law? Or do you see benefit in allowing limited access?

No siblings can marry ... the law is applied equally to everyone.

Why? There must be a reason

Bump Faun

Why no answer?

Siblings can't marry due to health concerns.

 

[Faun]

What are you talking about? Gay marriage was already legal in 37 states.

only because of the lawyers.....the courts....

big difference from what The People wanted....even gay Callyfornia voted against gay marriage....

Wrong again, most people wanted it too...

Civil Rights

Liar liar pants on fire.

Are you saying that gays aren't people?

How racist of you!

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying you're a fucking moron. Do you understand now?

 

[koshergrl]

I see no grounds since the law is applied equally to all.

Sorry faun, two same sex brothers can't marry. They are banned, you like arbitrary law? Or do you see benefit in allowing limited access?

No siblings can marry ... the law is applied equally to everyone.

Why? There must be a reason

Bump Faun

Why no answer?

Siblings can't marry due to health concerns.

Health concerns only surface after a couple of generations. First generation line breeding/sibling breeding has roughly the same odds as any other coupling of "normality" and slightly better than ordinary odds for excellence. That's why animal breeders engage in it.

So that's a big fat fail. Homosexual couplings have health concerns as well.

 

[koshergrl]

only because of the lawyers.....the courts....

big difference from what The People wanted....even gay Callyfornia voted against gay marriage....

Wrong again, most people wanted it too...

Civil Rights

Liar liar pants on fire.

Are you saying that gays aren't people?

How racist of you!

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying you're a fucking moron. Do you understand now?

Yes, you're a racist.