The Cysko Kid Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 http://www.ijreview.com/2015/04/294575-court-sides-bakery-denied-christian-two-bible-shaped-cakes/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 I didn't see it but I'm not surprised at all. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 oh, ic...he didnt' just want cakes he wanted cakes that said god hates fags. I'm sure if some Christian bakery refused cakes that said glory be to allah and his prophet mohammed and all his Isis lions, you guys wouldn't have a problem. Not a single one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Why is it that the right keeps pointing out this stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Why is it that the right keeps pointing out this stuff? because they honestly think it's a "gotcha" moment. Like oh look at this bakery that refused a reasonable religious request from what is obviously a wonderful jesus loving man how dare they turn around and say Christian bakeries should abide by homosexual weddings!!!! As if gay people asking for a simple cake to their wedding is "exactly" the same request as asking for cakes that are clearly and plainly disgusting and meant as hate speech. People wouldn't flinch if a bakey refused a KKK cake that had a black man hanging from a tree on it with the phrase good niggers are dead niggers or some shit like that. I love how the guy is denying now he wanted god hates fags on his cake, he knows what a piece of shit he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 his backup story with the ghostbusters symbol above the two men is equally as hysterical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 the article says the customer denied the "hate gays" part. Why is it that the left keeps saying "hands up, don't shoot" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 It's pretty much the exact same as gays targeting christian bakers for their wedding cakes but on one side it's perfectly ok and on the other side it's contemptible hate mongering. I'm of the opinion that no private business should be forced to cater to anyone for any reason but that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 the article says the customer denied the "hate gays" part. Why is it that the left keeps saying "hands up, don't shoot" ? Shouldn't EVERYBODY say don't shoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Okay, I'll explain one more time. The "hands up" part was a complete fraud. Yet, libs kept harping it like tree frogs. Some still are. It never was true. Okie-dokie ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 It makes for a easily digestible catch phrase for the kind of people catch phrases are made for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Pretty sure this was posted before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 in the Michael brown case it wasn't true. Certainly was valid for others as we've seen this week. God another video came out today where a cop had tackled a suspect and they were in the process of cuffing him when another cop shot him as he was face down in the cement. I simply can't believe what i'm seeing. And the cops explanation? I meant to fire my taser. Just unreal. The guy was no angel he had just sold some undercover cops a gun and ammo but they had him tackled and were putting his hands behind for cuffing. Than some 73 old sheriffs deputy shot him. Unreal. 73 years old and they're still allowing you foot pursuit? He probably lost his glasses breathing too hard so he couldn't tell he had his gun out. Unreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 It's pretty much the exact same as gays targeting christian bakers for their wedding cakes but on one side it's perfectly ok and on the other side it's contemptible hate mongering. I'm of the opinion that no private business should be forced to cater to anyone for any reason but that's just me. no it's not even remotely the same unless said gays were asking the bakeries to draw man on man anal penetration on their cakes. Which isn't what happened and you know it therefore your comparison is woefully invalid. It's not even in the same ballpark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 in the Michael brown case it wasn't true. Certainly was valid for others as we've seen this week. God another video came out today where a cop had tackled a suspect and they were in the process of cuffing him when another cop shot him as he was face down in the cement. I simply can't believe what i'm seeing. And the cops explanation? I meant to fire my taser. Just unreal. The guy was no angel he had just sold some undercover cops a gun and ammo but they had him tackled and were putting his hands behind for cuffing. Than some 73 old sheriffs deputy shot him. Unreal. 73 years old and they're still allowing you foot pursuit? He probably lost his glasses breathing too hard so he couldn't tell he had his gun out. Unreal. We could go back to the 50's, where there were no camera's, and the police side of the story was ALWAYS correct. Let the cameras role IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 We could go back to the 50's, where there were no camera's, and the police side of the story was ALWAYS correct. Let the cameras role IMO agreed, if cops are so sure they're always doing the right thing then why have they resisted camera's for so long? They know full well what they've gotten away with in the past that's why. The blue shield doesn't hold when there's video proof. I have no doubt that the black officer in SC would have never gone against the other officer and said "yeah I saw him place the taser next to Mr Scott". It's 2nd nature in a lot of depts. to massage crime scenes like that. And they all back each other up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 I'm going to beam a huge boner on here when the police unions fight the bodycams and conservatives come out swinging for the police unions. It's ok to put minimum standards of conduct and metrics to judge whether those standards have been met on teachers, but cops? nah can't fuck with cops they always tell the truth....evil 1st grade teachers though is who you got to watch out for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 agreed, if cops are so sure they're always doing the right thing then why have they resisted camera's for so long? They know full well what they've gotten away with in the past that's why. The blue shield doesn't hold when there's video proof. I have no doubt that the black officer in SC would have never gone against the other officer and said "yeah I saw him place the taser next to Mr Scott". It's 2nd nature in a lot of depts. to massage crime scenes like that. And they all back each other up. It's to the point were the cops have to justify their actions. Back in the 50's, everyone just believed the cops version of what happened. Cops have had their way for years and years I, for one, am glad they wear cameras. They are not above the law, and they should be held accounbtable when they break the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 I'm going to beam a huge boner on here when the police unions fight the bodycams and conservatives come out swinging for the police unions. It's ok to put minimum standards of conduct and metrics to judge whether those standards have been met on teachers, but cops? nah can't fuck with cops they always tell the truth....evil 1st grade teachers though is who you got to watch out for. Evil 1st grade teachers are supported by an evil union that is out to screw the taxpayers out of every dime. Oh wait, same as the police union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Evil 1st grade teachers are supported by an evil union that is out to screw the taxpayers out of every dime. Oh wait, same as the police union. yeah won't this be fun? when that national argument starts I might just toss my tv in a closet and not turn it on for months. I'm really tired of this national discourse where all sides change their tune from month to the next based on what's currently politically expedient. I'm tired of our culture and it's incessant hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 no it's not even remotely the same unless said gays were asking the bakeries to draw man on man anal penetration on their cakes. Which isn't what happened and you know it therefore your comparison is woefully invalid. It's not even in the same ballpark. no its actually the exact same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Why is it that the right keeps pointing out this stuff? Merely to keep hammering home the hypocrisy. they realize you understanded but it always bears repeating. And you gotta admit it happens over and over and over and..... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 no its actually the exact same thing. No it isn't, no matter how hard you want to believe it is. The man was asking the Bakery to make a deliberate piece of hate speech. As I already stated if a gay couple wants a cake that says heterosexual people hate filled war mongering simpletons who will kill us all in the name of their god.....than you have something to talk about. Right now you got nothing. And i'm someone who's on the fence in reality about whether private business's should be compelled to do business with whomever come to their door. With some services, such as bakeries..I don't think it's a big deal just find someone else. But then you leave the door "wide" open for other necessity services that deal in food, clothing, finance etc, etc.....to say meh I don't like your personal lifestyle. There's probably a medium ground that could be attained in a rational culture but that isn't who we are anymore. But even being on the fence I'm still not going to listen to anyone equate what that shitlicking fgt wanted that bakery to bake for him vs a simple gay couple wanting a cake. It's not even close to the same thing and anyone with any honor and decency can see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 so you're basically saying quoting the bible is the term of the day "hate speech" One verse apparently said homosexuality is a sin. The other said god loves sinners. With only the smallest amount of logic applied to that one could call it "love speech" instead. It comes down to baker "A" refusing the business of customer "B" because Customer "B"'s values offend them. And in either case Baker "A" should have that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 No it isn't, no matter how hard you want to believe it is. The man was asking the Bakery to make a deliberate piece of hate speech. As I already stated if a gay couple wants a cake that says heterosexual people hate filled war mongering simpletons who will kill us all in the name of their god.....than you have something to talk about. Right now you got nothing. And i'm someone who's on the fence in reality about whether private business's should be compelled to do business with whomever come to their door. With some services, such as bakeries..I don't think it's a big deal just find someone else. But then you leave the door "wide" open for other necessity services that deal in food, clothing, finance etc, etc.....to say meh I don't like your personal lifestyle. There's probably a medium ground that could be attained in a rational culture but that isn't who we are anymore. But even being on the fence I'm still not going to listen to anyone equate what that shitlicking fgt wanted that bakery to bake for him vs a simple gay couple wanting a cake. It's not even close to the same thing and anyone with any honor and decency can see that. Easy with the hyperbole. The baker was not asked to make a "deliberate piece of hate speech". He was asked to decorate cake with bible quotes that he didn't agree with. It's sorta like the baker that refused to bake a gay theme wedding cake because it was something he didn't agree with right? Since there is no hate speech your analogy invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 I wish government butted out of this shit. A business should be able to be ran however the owner sees fit. They can deal with the business related consequences, good or bad. The govt should not need to be involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Easy with the hyperbole. The baker was not asked to make a "deliberate piece of hate speech". He was asked to decorate cake with bible quotes that he didn't agree with. It's sorta like the baker that refused to bake a gay theme wedding cake because it was something he didn't agree with right? Since there is no hate speech your analogy invalid. you missed the god hates fags part didn't you? go back and read. Even the guys revised story with the ghostbusters symbol above the men is almost as bad. As for your "gay themed" wedding cake analogy...did some gay guys ask a baker to make some man love cake or something? Or was it just a cake? The story I heard wsa it was just a cake but the baker didn't want to do it simply because they were gay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 I'm going to beam a huge boner on here when the police unions fight the bodycams and conservatives come out swinging for the police unions. It's ok to put minimum standards of conduct and metrics to judge whether those standards have been met on teachers, but cops? nah can't fuck with cops they always tell the truth....evil 1st grade teachers though is who you got to watch out for. The outrage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.