Who's enjoying pride month

  • Thread starter Thread starter 70 Mach 1
  • Start date Start date


I predict one or more of her sons will self-delete in their teens; or delete her.

SMH
 
scottosan said:
No to the first, although I agreed they should. The cake has less to do with constitutional or legal rights, that's more personal.

As for Florida, yes they can say gay, read the bill. It prevents teachers from including it in curriculum any sexual orientation for k-3rd. Gay isn't even mentioned in the bill.
Click to expand...
Any business that serves the public should have to serve the public imo. Only exception would be if someone causes problems at their establishment like fighting or stealing etc.

I was just joking about the Florida thing as if people actually couldn't say gay there.
 
Stripped Rights said:
Any business that serves the public should have to serve the public imo. Only exception would be if someone causes problems at their establishment like fighting or stealing etc.

I was just joking about the Florida thing as if people actually couldn't say gay there.
Click to expand...
There's some gray area. If you have a menu and what you want isn't on the menu, you should not be obligated. I don't know the full story, but I thought they could buy the cake, just not with a male/male cake topper. And, I thought the cake maker lost in court anyway. But under the commerce clause of the constitution, a business should not discriminate
 
Bag Man said:
You're very nasty to your older superior.

Given you're not quite a man but a transgender still in transit what would you know about misogynistic? I realise you abuse any and all butt cracks and assholes but what else do you actually know?

Oh yeah...............I am a nice man for the record..............well at least nicer than you.

Happy Shit Stain to you as your kids in later life will refer to you as this. (y)
Click to expand...
Sad old man
 
scottosan said:
I don't know the full story, but I thought they could buy the cake, just not with a male/male cake topper. And, I thought the cake maker lost in court anyway.
Click to expand...
You could be right. I don't know or remember all of it either.
 
scottosan said:
There's some gray area. If you have a menu and what you want isn't on the menu, you should not be obligated. I don't know the full story, but I thought they could buy the cake, just not with a male/male cake topper. And, I thought the cake maker lost in court anyway. But under the commerce clause of the constitution, a business should not discriminate
Click to expand...

The maker declined to do a custom cake for them.
He sell them anything sitting on the shelves but no custom ordering.
 
Stripped Rights said:
Any business that serves the public should have to serve the public imo. Only exception would be if someone causes problems at their establishment like fighting or stealing etc.

I was just joking about the Florida thing as if people actually couldn't say gay there.
Click to expand...
So if you make cakes you support the notion that I can under penalty of federal law order you to make a cake that says "Stripped Rights Hates Gays Jews and all BIPOC people and dreams of fellating Trump"?

the cake guy served gays - he objected to being told what to say - you disagree?
 
Last edited:
Prof. Lawnchair said:
the cake guy served gays - he objected to being told what to say - you disagree?
Click to expand...

Not quite. He refused to make the gay couple a cake without hearing a single detail.

Untitled.png

Thankfully the courts got it right.
This is flat out discrimination based on sexual orientation.
 
Prof. Lawnchair said:
So if you make cakes you support the notion that I can under penalty of federal law order you to make a cake that says "Stripped Rights Hates Gays Jews and all BIPOC people and dreams of fellating Trump"?
Click to expand...
That's bigoted bullshit and you know it. Gay cakes™ are completely different and what they were asking for wasn't promoting hate or bigotry (another thing you're well aware of)
Prof. Lawnchair said:
the cake guy served gays - he objected to being told what to say - you disagree?
Click to expand...
Something else you know is that he refused them because he's against gay people and not what they wanted to say, which again, is bigotry because they weren't requesting hate or bigoted speech.

If someone wants to serve the public then they have to serve the entire public as long as it's not promoting hate.
 
Donnie B said:
Not quite. He refused to make the gay couple a cake without hearing a single detail.

View attachment 216778
Thankfully the courts got it right.
This is flat out discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia? Haha!
He won - he makes cakes for gays - he does NOT have to make cakes that celebrate gay marriage.
There is a huge legal difference.
 
Donnie B said:
Yes and then no.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...fusal-make-gender-transition-cake-2023-01-26/
Click to expand...
Yes the hacks in Colorado ruled against him - the United States Constitution sees it differently. It is not over.

And the case you reference here deals with a so- called trans person.
Do you support the government forcing someone to declare that a man has become a woman by his saying so? Against logic? Science? His religion? You grant the government that right? Really?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top