Gay wedding cakes and the bigots who won't bake them.

twostrokenut · Mar 5, 2014

UncleBuck said:
witness the idiocy that ensues when an idiot tries to humor another idiot's idiotic analogy.

Just get my Money, otherwise stare at my sig all day every day as you fall further into your own prejudice and bigotry attempting weak ass ad hom attacks on those that simply disagree with you fundamentally yet agree on the ethical treatment of others.

Clownshoes you are.

UncleBuck · Mar 5, 2014

twostrokenut said:
Just get my Money, otherwise stare at my sig all day every day.

you realize your sig demonstrates your continuing need to lie about me, whereas all i have to do is tell the truth about you.

do you think that's a good idea?

still waiting on that federal law, my non-stop lying little tyke.

jahbrudda · Mar 5, 2014

twostrokenut said:
You're kind of losing me a bit.
Jewish is a religion and a belief might be one against mass genocide idk....

I fail to understand how simply being black in america might be construed a religion though.

I was under the understanding that businesses open to the public could not discriminate against people regardless of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin.

twostrokenut · Mar 5, 2014

UncleBuck said:
you realize your sig demonstrates your continuing need to lie about me, whereas all i have to do is tell the truth about you.

do you think that's a good idea?

still waiting on that federal law, my non-stop lying little tyke.

Hold your breath slugger.
There's a link there for anyone to follow, unlike your nonsense.
You are as opaque as a telescope lens propped above a tripod wearing clown shoes.
Trifecta for you.

twostrokenut · Mar 5, 2014

jahbrudda said:
I was under the understanding that businesses open to the public could not discriminate against people regardless of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin.

Ah I see.
I thought this was about the "religious freedom" to deny such that is not on that list.
And the hippocracy it generates.

UncleBuck · Mar 5, 2014

hippocracy?

just sad to watch this display of intellects.

twostrokenut · Mar 5, 2014

UncleBuck said:
you realize your sig demonstrates your continuing need to lie about me

Final thought for your mentally challenged self:
That's a fully complete quote with no capitalization, correct punctuation and a deliberately
mis-spelled word as you wrote it.
It is linked and the source has a quoted source for context, child style for all to see.

Your "truth" consists of select-a-quotes that display willful ignorance and lack of context
to be purposefully deceitful.

In fact I am not the first to call you out on this behavior TODAY...
Like to see those linked quotes as well?

The ball is in your court, serve it up or hold it and drool on it, your choice;
I have lots of balls.

UncleBuck · Mar 5, 2014

twostrokenut said:
Final thought for your mentally challenged self:
That's a fully complete quote with no capitalization or punctuation as you wrote it.
It is linked and the source has a quoted source for context, child style for all to see.

Your "truth" consists of select-a-quotes that display willful ignorance and lack of context
to be purposefully deceitful.

In fact I am not the first to call you out on this behavior TODAY...
Like to see those linked quotes as well?

The ball is in your court, serve it up or hold it and drool on it, your choice;
I have lots of balls.

but not a lot of brains.

the sad fact is that i asked you if it was a good idea for the federal government to end the racist practices that the south refused to end on their own, and you said that you did not think it was a good idea to end those racist practices.

you can try to dress that up any way you want, the point is that you still endorse and protect racist practices. and now you want to codify legal protection for similar bigoted practices.

at least i was trolling, the saddest part is that you are so super serious.

twostrokenut · Mar 5, 2014

The sad part actually is you need to tell others their opinions to justify your rebuttals.
Sadder still you are attempting to play a hand with your cards facing the wrong way.

Can you burn a cross in my yard in the name of trolling?
I think not....so sad.

jahbrudda · Mar 5, 2014

twostrokenut said:
Ah I see.
I thought this was about the "religious freedom" to deny such that is not on that list.
And the hippocracy it generates.

Actually you are right, I was trying to demonstrate the similarities of government forcing private business owners to do business with people who offend them.
Not the best analogy, I'll admit that.

racerboy71 · Mar 5, 2014

UncleBuck said:
hippocracy?

just sad to watch this display of intellects.

hippopocracy??

Beefbisquit · Mar 5, 2014

Wavels said:
Well, let’s say, for illustrative purposes, that an atheist gay couple owns a bakery.
Some Westboro Baptist Church members attempt to patronize this bakery and want to have a cake baked on which they request many of their hateful and wackadoodle slogans be emblazoned.
Should the gay bakers comply?
And if they do not want to, should the Government compel them to do so?

I admit to extreme ambivalence on this issue.
It is not that easy.

Being homosexual is an intrinsic property of homosexuals. Hate toward people isn't an intrinsic property, it's learned.

One is allowing people to be discriminated against because of something they are unable to change about themselves, the other is 'discriminating' against a group of 'discriminators' that are doing a learned behavior.

Some major differences, regardless.

charface · Mar 5, 2014

Do you just assume Catholic Priests
are not getting a cake or do you get references from the alter bois?

UncleBuck · Mar 5, 2014

twostrokenut said:
The sad part actually is you need to tell others their opinions to justify your rebuttals.
Sadder still you are attempting to play a hand with your cards facing the wrong way.

Can you burn a cross in my yard in the name of trolling?
I think not....so sad.

if it's not a good idea to end racist practices, how is it not an endorsement and protection of racist practices?

like my sig?

twostrokenut · Mar 5, 2014

UncleBuck said:
if it's not a good idea to end racist practices, how is it not an endorsement and protection of racist practices?

like my sig?

Sure I do, has links and everything....a new high note for your shameful, shabby self.

Realize you are effectively talking to yourself AND answering your own questions, and all that comes with that....a demonstration:

You sig answers your retarded spam question#1.....from your sig:

twostrokenut said:
Look dude I don't think its a good idea. Not because I want businesses to be racist but because this stuff imho is better worked out by the individual.
What should happen is the purples make a stink, boycott my eatery, persuade all the oranges and greens to do it too.....they will, cause they all know its wrong....I go out of business cause times have changed for the better.

Who said its not a good idea to end racial practices?
Riiiiiiight, your ass did.

I simply said ending racial practices cannot be successfully legislated effective, then offered sucessful exercise of right to boycott and protest as being more effectively successful imho.

You can follow your own sig and come to this conclusion yourself if you have no mental blocks about it.

What may we infer about you from my sig?
Self proclaimed trolling with absolutely zero evidence..Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

jahbrudda · Mar 5, 2014

Beefbisquit said:
Being homosexual is an intrinsic property of homosexuals. Hate toward people isn't an intrinsic property, it's learned.

One is allowing people to be discriminated against because of something they are unable to change about themselves, the other is 'discriminating' against a group of 'discriminators' that are doing a learned behavior.

Some major differences, regardless.

Being gay is not proven to be biological, so how can you make that statement?
It doesn't matter to me if they are born that way or not, and even if some were, I'm sure it's a choice for others.
I think every american should be able to choose the lifestyle they want to live.

Wavels · Mar 5, 2014

Did anyone here even read the proposed, now vetoed bill?
I don't think so, as it never mentions homosexuality.

And why does no one here apparently understand the word ambivalent???
I said I was ambivalent in my first post.
Yikes!

If a truly free human being finds or feels that something is morally repugnant, should the government compel this person to do that which they believe is morally objectionable?

Nobody has answered this...makes me wonder why, it is not that difficult.

What does genetic predisposition have to do with this?

UncleBuck · Mar 5, 2014

twostrokenut said:
Who said its not a good idea to end racial practices?

you did. see my sig.

twostrokenut said:
Riiiiiiight, your ass did.

nope.

my stance is that it was a good thing for the federal government to force you racist southerners to end your racist practices.

you said that wasn't a good idea, because you endorse and protect racism.

twostrokenut said:
I simply said ending racial practices cannot be successfully legislated effective, then offered sucessful exercise of right to boycott and protest as being more effectively successful imho.

if boycott and protest were more successful, then why did the federal government have to step in and FORCE you racist southerners to end your racist business practices?

you are dumber than shit, and racist to boot.

in other words, an average white southerner.

UncleBuck · Mar 5, 2014

Wavels said:
If a truly free human being finds or feels that something is morally repugnant, should the government compel this person to do that which they believe is morally objectionable?

should someone have to choose from a lesser pool of goods and services just because they were born a certain way?

greentrip · Mar 5, 2014

Wavels said:
Did anyone here even read the proposed, now vetoed bill?
I don't think so, as it never mentions homosexuality.

And why does no one here apparently understand the word ambivalent???
I said I was ambivalent in my first post.
Yikes!

If a truly free human being finds or feels that something is morally repugnant, should the government compel this person to do that which they believe is morally objectionable?

Of course not, and that's why a dozen or so other states will be putting up similar laws soon.

Gay wedding cakes and the bigots who won't bake them.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

bud bootlegger

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member