Yeah...both sides are idiots. It's just a ing cake. The baker should have been smarter and just said that he didn't have time to do it or something. Obviously both sides looking to make a point.
Over a cake.
I have to side with the baker on this one.
The gots are just looking for a fight and their 15 minutes of fame..
I know I have people/companies I refuse to work for...not because they are gay but because they are s...If they sued me to work for them I would give them a big " YOU".
Yeah...both sides are idiots. It's just a ing cake. The baker should have been smarter and just said that he didn't have time to do it or something. Obviously both sides looking to make a point.
Over a cake.
The baker is obviously a closet sexual like the father in American Beauty. Only that explains the whining.
But the gots that requested the cake are also typical en led buckets.
Blame is on both sides tbqh ing children
1st World, en led, rich people issues.
Self indulgent bas s is what we are.
thank god they weren't black gays
Gays get all worked up over this , like it means something, meanwhile sexuality ITSELF is illegal, and punished by death or imprisonment is much of the world
Meanwhile guy somehow thinks God gives half a rats for what event he displays his cake-honoring-God art for? God is, I'm pretty sure, much more concerned with the glutinous consumption, and pointless disposal of uneaten portions of said cake while people all over the world are starving! God has spoken on the issue: weddings should feature dry fish and bread, served in baskets, if we want to get technical.
Ok, but he still makes money off this, is turning down customers simply because of their orientation really a good look for your business?
It's not that the baker doesn't have a million excuses not to bake for these guys, it's that I'm fairly confident that he's using this case to go through the courts, SCOTUS included if needed be, in order to get that Colorado law ruled uncons utional.
In general, turning down customers is not good for business. In this case however, he has probably gotten extra business out of it.
This crap is like suing over "no shirt, no shoes, no service"
And thank god the baker was not a part time neighborhood watch
Unless you're born allergic to shoes and refused service, this is re ed comparison.
No it's not.
The Baker should have the right to serve or not serve anyone he wants. He doesn't have a monopoly on bakeries and is not denying the gots the right to eat cake.
Agrre. But closet baker didn't have to be a about it either. It's a ing cake
Exactly. Go down the street and get a ing cake somewhere else.
So you think he should be able to deny people based on skin color if he wants
I knew some got would go there.
I knew you would get defensive about your re ed post
gots aren't covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I knew you'd probably move the goal post.
Doesn't matter what I think if it's against the law.
and thank god the baker didn't shoot them
Is there a generally accepted religious belief that would allow him to do so?
I've read it. Interpretation is what is whack. I just don't subscribe to the hate based on biblical text.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)