(12-14-2014 02:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 02:10 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 02:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  what exactly is a "pro traditional marriage cake" that wouldn't be protected under the same law outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Ask the bakers who wouldn't make one, they seemed to know. Otherwise, why would they turn down business without knowing what it is?

so is that your admission that you are completely making sh!t out of your as.s and can't name a case where a straight guy looking for a cake was denied due to his sexual orientation.

oh and nice job completely avoiding the part of my question where I asked how the straight guy getting denied wouldn't be protected under this law.

What difference does sexual orientation mean to any of this? A straight couple couldn't get a gay cake from a straight baker just like the gay couple couldn't.

And nice job of avoiding my question about why this caller can find gay bakers when gay couples can't. With just his phone in hand he found a bunch of intolerant haters. Now where are the prosecutions, fines, and threats to shut them down?

(12-14-2014 12:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 12:23 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Sure. If he chooses to fail, it's his to lose.

and there you have it...

What bothers you about knowing someones position on subjects? If they want to readily admit something, what's the problem? If they're racist, don't you want to know? If they're opposed to the homosexual lifestyle, wouldn't you rather know so you could find a merchant who would welcome you with his dick out? I don't care if someone hangs a sign saying they're gay. More power to them. Let their customers decide if they want to patronize them.

Why are you opposed to free will and thought? Why so fcking intolerant?

(12-14-2014 03:24 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 12:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 12:23 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Sure. If he chooses to fail, it's his to lose.

and there you have it...

What bothers you about knowing someones position on subjects? If they want to readily admit something, what's the problem? If they're racist, don't you want to know? If they're opposed to the homosexual lifestyle, wouldn't you rather know so you could find a merchant who would welcome you with his dick out? I don't care if someone hangs a sign saying they're gay. More power to them. Let their customers decide if they want to patronize them.

Why are you opposed to free will and thought? Why so fcking intolerant?

you are okay with going back to the "whites only" days. that's pretty sh.ity dude.

only a total idiot believes/states the "you are intolerant because you do not support my intolerance" line.

Can you not read the ******* English language twit.

(12-14-2014 03:40 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Can you not read the ******* English language twit.

I can read what you are saying perfectly fine. It's what you are saying that's the problem.

So point to were I said I was fine with going back to the whites only days.

(12-14-2014 03:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 03:40 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Can you not read the ******* English language twit.

I can read what you are saying perfectly fine. It's what you are saying that's the problem.

Paul is saying people should make their own choices and you have a problem with it. Not surprising.

(12-14-2014 12:23 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Sure. If he chooses to fail, it's his to lose.

so are you saying this post wasn't related to this question that I asked:

so if someone wants to put up a "whites only" sign....

I mean it's his business, he invested his time/money into it. he should be able to operate it however he wishes.

or was that post a mistake? because it's clearly an admission that you would be okay with "whites only" signs being put up.

(12-14-2014 04:07 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 03:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 03:40 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Can you not read the ******* English language twit.

I can read what you are saying perfectly fine. It's what you are saying that's the problem.

Paul is saying people should make their own choices and you have a problem with it. Not surprising.

I have a problem with it if it involves "whites only" signs.

(12-14-2014 04:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 12:23 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Sure. If he chooses to fail, it's his to lose.

so are you saying this post wasn't related to this question that I asked:

so if someone wants to put up a "whites only" sign....

I mean it's his business, he invested his time/money into it. he should be able to operate it however he wishes.

or was that post a mistake? because it's clearly an admission that you would be okay with "whites only" signs being put up.

So comprehension is your problem. Glad we cleared that up.

(12-14-2014 04:41 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 04:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 12:23 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Sure. If he chooses to fail, it's his to lose.

so are you saying this post wasn't related to this question that I asked:

so if someone wants to put up a "whites only" sign....

I mean it's his business, he invested his time/money into it. he should be able to operate it however he wishes.

or was that post a mistake? because it's clearly an admission that you would be okay with "whites only" signs being put up.

So comprehension is your problem. Glad we cleared that up.

no you were very clear. that's your problem right now.

(12-14-2014 04:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 04:07 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 03:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 03:40 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Can you not read the ******* English language twit.

I can read what you are saying perfectly fine. It's what you are saying that's the problem.

Paul is saying people should make their own choices and you have a problem with it. Not surprising.

I have a problem with it if it involves "whites only" signs.

Where is your "problem" with gay only events?

(12-14-2014 05:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 04:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 04:07 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 03:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 03:40 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Can you not read the ******* English language twit.

I can read what you are saying perfectly fine. It's what you are saying that's the problem.

Paul is saying people should make their own choices and you have a problem with it. Not surprising.

I have a problem with it if it involves "whites only" signs.

Where is your "problem" with gay only events?

please elaborate on what you mean by that.

(12-14-2014 03:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you are okay with going back to the "whites only" days.

(12-14-2014 04:05 PM)Paul M Wrote:  So point to were I said I was fine with going back to the whites only days.

(12-14-2014 04:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  because it's clearly an admission that you would be okay with "whites only" signs being put up.

As I said.

A rock has better comprehension skills.

(12-14-2014 05:50 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 03:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you are okay with going back to the "whites only" days.

(12-14-2014 04:05 PM)Paul M Wrote:  So point to were I said I was fine with going back to the whites only days.

(12-14-2014 04:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  because it's clearly an admission that you would be okay with "whites only" signs being put up.

As I said.

A rock has better comprehension skills.

nah, you just can't understand your own position.

Your stance was allow "whites only" signs...if its a bad thing the free market will take care of it.

THATS THE EXACT SAME FU.CKING POSITION SEGREGATIONISTS TOOK DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

Point to where I said I was fine with going back to the whites only days.

(12-14-2014 05:57 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Point to where I said I was fine with going back to the whites only days.

the only acceptable response to that question is that the signs should never be allowed to be put up with in the first place.

Tolerance is a one-way street.

(12-14-2014 06:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 05:57 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Point to where I said I was fine with going back to the whites only days.

the only acceptable response to that question is that the signs should never be allowed to be put up with in the first place.

Can't say as I've every seen you admit when you're wrong.


'Course that's almost always. Oh well.

They shouldve made the cake. That disappoints me