Lesbian Wedding Cake Denialism

[Jedidiah]

By that logic, I can cite a few examples of Christians suing atheists and call that a reverse persecution. Here's what you fail to understand: it's not a persecution if a few dunderheads abuse the litigation process. Everyone deals with that, and in no way does it mean you're at higher risk for expressing your Christianity. Jaecp and I proved it's not a risky thing to do.

Ah you admit these litigants are dunderheads.

[whag]

Ah you admit these litigants are dunderheads.

No, I was referring to the cases like Adrift cited (and any cases in which Christians frivolously sue atheists). I don't think it was dunderheaded for the lesbian couple to complain like they did.

If you actually read the interview instead of assuming you know the story, you'd realize how silly you sound now.

[Jedidiah]

I did not stop with the interview.

[whag]

I did not stop with the interview.

Where'd you go after that?

[Tassman]

And it all could have been uneventful if the lesbians had simply gone to another baker who was willing to sell them a cake and leave the other baker alone.

Yes it could've.

Just as it would also have been uneventful if Rosa Parks had simply moved to the back of the bus when confronted. But why would she have done that? She was demanding her civil rights in the face of bigotry just as the lesbians were.

[whag]

As Mossy and Jed have clearly demonstrated disinterest in the facts, here's a link to the ruling itself:

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsset...Cakes%20FO.pdf

[whag]

It's also interesting that Christians here fail to acknowledge this lesbian couple adopted the kids of a friend of theirs who died. Very selfish people, these.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoy...heir-kids.html

The next time you see someone upset about that nice baker couple Oregon ordered to pay $135,000 to that spiteful thin-skinned lesbian couple, let them know that that nice baker couple doxxed the lesbian couple and very nearly cost them custody of their two children as a result.

[Jedidiah]

As Mossy and Jed have clearly demonstrated disinterest in the facts, here's a link to the ruling itself:

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsset...Cakes%20FO.pdf

This ruling is really not "facts" but legal jargon interpreting facts. I am aware of a great deal of the new available to the public. Liberals seem to ignore some of the facts that are less interesting to them.

It's also interesting that Christians here fail to acknowledge this lesbian couple adopted the kids of a friend of theirs who died. Very selfish people, these.

And this is relevant how? Neither moss nor I have claimed these people were unnaturally horrible. I am sure they have friends and family just like everyone else. The fact that I think they are lying about their motives in the case does not mean they are any more evil than anyone else. Human beings are imperfect not demons.

[One Bad Pig]

No, you miswrote it.

Lolno. You clearly misinterpreted what she typed. Do you need remedial English lessons?

[whag]

This ruling is really not "facts" but legal jargon interpreting facts.

That makes no sense. Explain how the drafters misinterpreted the facts.

I am aware of a great deal of the new available to the public. Liberals seem to ignore some of the facts that are less interesting to them.

Tell me. I'm interested.

[Jedidiah]

I suspect, whag, that you have read all the same stuff I have read. If you have a specific question I may answer. A generic, "Tell me. I'm interested" gets nothing.

A court document is not facts, as you know. Don't play dumb.

[Tassman]

This ruling is really not "facts" but legal jargon interpreting facts. I am aware of a great deal of the new available to the public. Liberals seem to ignore some of the facts that are less interesting to them.

Yes it is. The "ruling" is consistent with the fact that Oregon law prohibits businesses from discriminating or refusing service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn away customers because of race, sex, disability, age or religion. The cake-shop owners were at fault, end of story.

[whag]

I suspect, whag, that you have read all the same stuff I have read. If you have a specific question I may answer. A generic, "Tell me. I'm interested" gets nothing.

A court document is not facts, as you know. Don't play dumb.

Leave this thread if you can't bother to highlight what the court got wrong and what you insist I'm conveniently ignoring.

[Roy]

Lolno. You clearly misinterpreted what she typed. Do you need remedial English lessons?

No. You do though, since you don't seem to know how to parse verb modifiers.

[JonathanL]

No. You do though, since you don't seem to know how to parse verb modifiers.

Osteen is wrong. He also thinks that everybody will be saved. Friendly and liberal does not right make. It only means he is compromising his faith, and I use that term loosely with him and others like him, in order to be popular and make lots of money.

"in order to be popular and make lots of money" clearly refers back to the phrase "he is compromising his faith". You're the one who misread mossrose, she didn't "miswrite" anything.