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

Status
Not open for further replies.
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
speaking as an apprentice super-villain myself, it's not about the money, it's about taking over the world.
Click to expand...
It seems one needs a hint of sociopathic tendencies in order to develop a hunger for power.
I've never been truly comfortable in positions of leadership. I'll do it out of responsibility to a greater good, but not out of desire.

Dr Kynes said:
yes.

if i open a shop, and refuse service to everyone wearing their drawers down around their ass, i can only refuse those who are NOT black, chicano, asian, or some other protected group, because they are special.

it's all about making an easy buck from a civil lolsuit. (nice euphemism)
Click to expand...
So, what you're saying is there should be fashion police? At least their underwear is clean! :lol:

Would you turn away a potential customer that wore this:
Lingerie-group.jpg :?:
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
It seems one needs a hint of sociopathic tendencies in order to develop a hunger for power.
I've never been truly comfortable in positions of leadership. I'll do it out of responsibility to a greater good, but not out of desire.



So, what you're saying is there should be fashion police? At least their underwear is clean! :lol:

Would you turn away a potential customer that wore this:
View attachment 3015645 :?:
Click to expand...
no, i would not turn away betties in lingerie, cuz i have a fully functional Y chromosome

but this:



is always repugnant.

further, those babes in lingerie would be arrested for their attire, while these assholes are allowed to roam free.

america is turning into a shitstain thanks to dippledinks like bucky.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
no, i would not turn away betties in lingerie, cuz i have a fully functional Y chromosome

but this:



is always repugnant.

further, those babes in lingerie would be arrested for their attire, while these assholes are allowed to roam free.

america is turning into a shitstain thanks to dippledinks like bucky.
Click to expand...
Why are you staring at young men's sagging pants long enough to formulate a negative opinion about them?

You know what you should do if you come across something like this again?

"Oh hey look, that gentleman's pants are sagging far beneath his buttocks, that's just silly.."

:turns head:

PROBLEM SOLVED!

What are you, the fashion police?

 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
no, i would not turn away betties in lingerie, cuz i have a fully functional Y chromosome

but this:



is always repugnant.

further, those babes in lingerie would be arrested for their attire, while these assholes are allowed to roam free.

america is turning into a shitstain thanks to dippledinks like bucky.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, as long as it covers the "bathing suit areas", it's legal to wear in public. All those ladies seem to be in the clear.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
a google seatch of "dippledink" reveals an interesting pattern of forum use by the author and creator of said word.

hey kynes, tell me more about how only non-whites are protected by civil rights.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i've spun no story, only reminded you of history.

the view you support is where racist business owners who are supposedly open to the public get to kick out blacks if they so choose. that's a belief you have made very clear in debates when you were defending your hero and savior, rawn pawl.

the problem with that racist view of yours is that it causes harm.

that which causes harm can not be a right.

so when you say the government took away rights by telling racist business owners that they could not do that, you are ignoring history completely in order to defend racist business owners, an endorsement of racist practices that cause harm to others.

don't be mad with me, it is history that has your racist ass checkmated here.
Click to expand...

You've tied two separate situations together as if they are the same. They are not.

In the first instance, a person is making a choice in how they will use their OWN property. You or I may disagree with that and choose differently, but in this situation, the property owner has not left their OWN property.

In the second situation, a person has left their property and gone to anothers property and demanded that the owner do something they want them to. That is wrong and what the KKK, the DEA and YOU champion. Why do you use the same methods as a racist group and the DEA? Are you a racist prohibitionist ?

How do those clown shoes fit you? Rather well, I'd say. You are free to wear them on your property though, have fun.
 
Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
I
Would you turn away a potential customer that wore this:
View attachment 3015645 :?:
Click to expand...
Damn straight I would. Someone that comes into my shop half naked is flipping me off, showing disrespect to me and my customers. It's like that fool friend of yours that can't leave the dumbphone in the car when you take her to a fine restaurant with friends. The message is "fuck you, a call coming in is more important than this meal and my friends".
 
Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
no, i would not turn away betties in lingerie, cuz i have a fully functional Y chromosome

but this:



is always repugnant.

further, those babes in lingerie would be arrested for their attire, while these assholes are allowed to roam free.

america is turning into a shitstain thanks to dippledinks like bucky.
Click to expand...
Yep.

If just one of those morons stepped into my store looking tacky like that I'd quickly yank their pants down around their knees and not being able to make a step with both legs bound give them a hard shove in the gut taking them down. Last move would be take out this trash and tell 'em to never come back.
 
GOD HERE

GOD HERE

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Well when your intellectual reservoir is dry, it's really dry isn't it?
Click to expand...
Yours has been dry for the past 3 months. Every post is " wahhhh property rights, government coercion wahhhh. Murray Rothbard... 1984.... Voluntary contract... wahhhhhh"
 
Wavels

Wavels

Well-Known Member
GOD HERE said:
Yours has been dry for the past 3 months. Every post is " wahhhh property rights, government coercion wahhhh. Murray Rothbard... 1984.... Voluntary contract... wahhhhhh"
Click to expand...
And why then, has not the almighty God smitten these allegedly bogus assertions with flawless, insurmountable logic.
You should be able to easily render his points into the realm of inconsequential nonsense.
Oh, hmmm, methinks it is because you are entirely incapable of doing so.
I have a hunch that you are a false God, you obviously are totally devoid of omniscience.
 
Winter Woman

Winter Woman

Well-Known Member
who in their right mind would want to eat something made by a person that detests them? I wouldn't. Must be about money.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Winter Woman said:
who in their right mind would want to eat something made by a person that detests them? I wouldn't. Must be about money.
Click to expand...
i think it's more about gay people wanting access to the same set of goods and services that the rest of us get to take for granted.

how would you feel if you were barred from a series of establishments because you were white, and the racist business owners' ability to do so was legally protected and codified into law?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
You've tied two separate situations together as if they are the same. They are not.

In the first instance, a person is making a choice in how they will use their OWN property. You or I may disagree with that and choose differently, but in this situation, the property owner has not left their OWN property.

In the second situation, a person has left their property and gone to anothers property and demanded that the owner do something they want them to. That is wrong and what the KKK, the DEA and YOU champion. Why do you use the same methods as a racist group and the DEA? Are you a racist prohibitionist ?

How do those clown shoes fit you? Rather well, I'd say. You are free to wear them on your property though, have fun.
Click to expand...
try all the word salad you want, rob.

oi have you on record defending the denial of service that blacks had to endure in the south pre-civil rights. an ugly chapter of our history that caused harm to blacks.

you defend the racist business owners at the expense of the blacks.

your attempts to redefine and revise history will not change what happened, nor will it change the consequences of your views. you are laughable and pathetic in your attempts to do so.
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
what the fuck don't you idiots understand about this?

no one is born a member of the WBC. being a member of the WBC is not a civil right, like sexual orientation is.

we get it kynes, in addition to being a racist you are also a homophobe. no further elaboration of your idiocy via a series of bad analogies is needed.
Click to expand...
It's funny how ass backwards you are.

WBC Membership- freedom of religion and freedom of association. Two very protected rights, expressly stated by the constitution. A clearly protected civil right.

Homosexuality- no where has it been mentioned in the constitution. A creative argument might cover it under the right of association. A few states have added protections to this, but the federal government has yet to declare it a civil right.

How fucked up are you?
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
It's funny how ass backwards you are.

WBC Membership- freedom of religion and freedom of association. Two very protected rights, expressly stated by the constitution. A clearly protected civil right.

Homosexuality- no where has it been mentioned in the constitution. A creative argument might cover it under the right of association. A few states have added protections to this, but the federal government has yet to declare it a civil right.

How fucked up are you?
Click to expand...
Is heterosexuality mentioned in the constitution? Is it stated that it's protected, or is it assumed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top