- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28955
17 Jul 23
@kilroy70 saidSo that's a firm no then to the providing of a link to validate your claims?
I'm not surprised you would presume I was making this up.
What the acquaintance said barely showed up in a local news source, and there was never any mention of it in any of the national news outlets (conservative or left wing). I most likely saw it in one of the many local neighborhood newspapers... which btw are predominantly left wing papers.
Regardless, the acquaintance didn't say anything many of us who actually live here didn't already know.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28955
17 Jul 23
As an aside, I know of a Christian baker who invited a gay couple into their bakery just to tell them he wouldn't make them a wedding cake and on their way out pelted them with pickled eggs. This was validated by an acquaintance of the baker.
I won't be providing a link to the above story. You will just need to take my word on it. Everybody in my village (24 yokels and 19 goats) is aware of the story.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidSo your argument is you don't believe it, and I'm making it up because I'm unable to provide a link.
So that's a firm no then to the providing of a link to validate your claims?
If an obscure quote from years ago (in a neighborhood newspaper) can't be found on the internet, it doesn't exist.
BTW, I looked at the link FMF insisted I look at. And as I suspected, his claim of "hundreds of laws" was a gross exaggeration. Even if he counts bills put forward but not voted on as "laws", the number still doesn't add up to one hundred. This would be like me claiming FMF has posted hundreds of messages in this one thread. But to be fair maybe he wasn't being serious... maybe he was just exercising a bit of his world famous levity.
Edit: I was surprised to see how many blue states are actively pushing back against an aggressive trans agenda. I haven't seen this kind of bipartisan effort to shut down self appointed tyrants since the Joeseph Mccarthy era.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28955
17 Jul 23
@kilroy70 saidLet's assume the gay couple didn't know the baker would decline their request for a wedding cake, on account of being a Christian. (Bakers after all are not known for broadcasting their particular faith and probably wasn't carrying a bible or tambourine). Were the couple justified in being disgruntled on being refused custom? And is it ok for a baker to discriminate on who they serve? Could they, for example, refuse to serve customers of different religions or people without a faith?
So your argument is you don't believe it, and I'm making it up because I'm unable to provide a link.
If an obscure quote from years ago (in a neighborhood newspaper) can't be found on the internet, it doesn't exist.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidWhat makes you think the couple was "disgruntled"?
Let's assume the gay couple didn't know the baker would decline their request for a wedding cake, on account of being a Christian. (Bakers after all are not known for broadcasting their particular faith and probably wasn't carrying a bible or tambourine). Were the couple justified in being disgruntled on being refused custom? And is it ok for a baker to discriminate o ...[text shortened]... Could they, for example, refuse to serve customers of different religions or people without a faith?
There were two ways for this to go. Either the bakery gives them a cake made to their specifications or they sue the bakery. So either way they win... either the bakery acquiesces to their demand for a specific type of cake (for a gay wedding) or they take the owner of the bakery to court.
When I said they knew full well what they were doing that's exactly what I meant.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28955
@kilroy70 saidSure, but that's not the proposition I put to you.
What makes you think the couple was "disgruntled"?
There were two ways for this to go. Either the bakery gives them a cake made to their specifications or they sue the bakery. So either way they win... either the bakery acquiesces to their demand for a specific type of cake (for a gay wedding) or they take the owner of the bakery to court.
When I said they knew full well what they were doing that's exactly what I meant.
LET'S ASSUME the gay couple didn't know the baker would decline their request for a wedding cake, on account of being a Christian. (Bakers after all are not known for broadcasting their particular faith and probably wasn't carrying a bible or tambourine). Were the couple justified in being disgruntled on being refused custom? And is it ok for a baker to discriminate on who they serve? Could they, for example, refuse to serve customers of different religions or people without a faith?
Edit: It's ok if you don't know.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI'm not going to rehash this. If you want to know what I think happened (and why it happened) you can read what I've already said.
Sure, but that's not the proposition I put to you.
LET'S ASSUME the gay couple didn't know the baker would decline their request for a wedding cake, on account of being a Christian. (Bakers after all are not known for broadcasting their particular faith and probably wasn't carrying a bible or tambourine). Were the couple justified in being disgruntled on being refu ...[text shortened]... erve customers of different religions or people without a faith?
Edit: It's ok if you don't know.
You can make up any kind of scenario you want. Or come to whatever conclusion that validates your beliefs and fits neatly into your world view.
17 Jul 23
@kilroy70 saidBTW, the bakery did offer to sell them a nice looking cake that the couple could have adorned with gay symbols. But they refused and insisted the baker do it.
What makes you think the couple was "disgruntled"?
There were two ways for this to go. Either the bakery gives them a cake made to their specifications or they sue the bakery. So either way they win... either the bakery acquiesces to their demand for a specific type of cake (for a gay wedding) or they take the owner of the bakery to court.
When I said they knew full well what they were doing that's exactly what I meant.
@kilroy70 saidWhere's your list of "hundreds of laws" demonizing Christians and Republicans?
BTW, I looked at the link FMF insisted I look at. And as I suspected, his claim of "hundreds of laws" was a gross exaggeration. Even if he counts bills put forward but not voted on as "laws", the number still doesn't add up to one hundred. This would be like me claiming FMF has posted hundreds of messages in this one thread. But to be fair maybe he wasn't being serious... ma ...[text shortened]... n this kind of bipartisan effort to shut down self appointed tyrants since the Joeseph Mccarthy era.
@kilroy70 saidThere are already 79 that have been passed in 2023 alone. 356 in the process of being passed. 561 altogether. There were state by details. OK so you are unimpressed. I get it. Let's see your list then.
BTW, I looked at the link FMF insisted I look at. And as I suspected, his claim of "hundreds of laws" was a gross exaggeration. Even if he counts bills put forward but not voted on as "laws", the number still doesn't add up to one hundred.
17 Jul 23
@divegeester saidI was told if you press your ear up against your neighbors buttocks and listened carefully, you can hear the ocean.
LOL
But yours wasn’t?
It was on the internet, so it must be true.
17 Jul 23
@fmf saidyou have proved my point here, of course.
It's OK by me if you do. In this particular case, you sound just like people who do.
I never said that I hated these people, nor did I praise them on bended knee. The penalty...?
I now get to be categorized by the WOKEs as an anti-trans. Hmmm.
You self-righteous ones are the epitome of super-touchy, continually making a mountain out of a mole hill.