If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Bakery that refused to sell wedding cake to lesbian couple found to have discriminated, its owner saying it's part of 'God's plan'. Sure, if God's plan for you is a jury trial   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 676
    More: Followup, lesbian couples, public accommodations  
•       •       •

5454 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2014 at 1:11 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



676 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-21 01:54:56 PM

totallyfubar: Notto - "Segregationists used the Bible to justify their actions. "

That is an incorrect interpretation obviously.  As we all see, the Bible is misused and misquoted too much.  Boil it all down, God loves the sinner and hates the sin.  So do not contribute to the sinning action of others.


Not so obviously to those who disagree with your interpretation.  Interpretations are like aholes.  Everybody has them.

Segregationist certainly did (and probably still do) consider copulation between races to be a sin as outline in their interpretation of the Bible.  This stuff is well documented history and is in the very court cases that were fought.   Doesn't make it right, but certainly makes the comparison to gay marriage and those who fight it on 'religious' grounds a valid comparison.
 
2014-01-21 01:55:25 PM

hardinparamedic: Phinn: When you define what's "protected" by arbitrary rules, then there's no reason "political belief" can't become protected.

Well, cry me a river, Phinn. Until such point that humanity evolves to where it does not make decisions based on inherent stereotypical judgements and racial demographics, protected classes will be necessary.

In reality, our entire country was founded on the ideas of protected classes - namely freedom from religious doctrine in Government dealings, and the idea that the majority's tyranny through "popular opinion" should not determine policy.



Forced discrimination was the law, right before forced non-discrimination became the law.

Our entire country was founded on one of the essential "rights of Englishmen" -- the freedom of association and its commercial application, freedom of contract.

That was later erased by control freaks pretending to be smarter than everyone else.
 
2014-01-21 01:55:41 PM

hardinparamedic: Phinn: When you define what's "protected" by arbitrary rules, then there's no reason "political belief" can't become protected.

Well, cry me a river, Phinn. Until such point that humanity evolves to where it does not make decisions based on inherent stereotypical judgements and racial demographics, protected classes will be necessary.

In reality, our entire country was founded on the ideas of protected classes - namely freedom from religious doctrine in Government dealings, and the idea that the majority's tyranny through "popular opinion" should not determine policy.


"Majority rule, minority rights"
 
2014-01-21 01:56:48 PM
Chummer45

Discrimination against someone for what they are (ex. black) is biblically wrong.  Refusing to participate in a sinful ACT by others is not discrimination.  It would be like a black person asked me to sell them a gun vs. a chinese person asking me to sell them a gun to kill someone.  I would not sell to the one who is going to do something I find morrally wrong but I would sell to the other.
 
2014-01-21 01:57:11 PM

notto: totallyfubar: Notto - "Segregationists used the Bible to justify their actions. "

That is an incorrect interpretation obviously.  As we all see, the Bible is misused and misquoted too much.  Boil it all down, God loves the sinner and hates the sin.  So do not contribute to the sinning action of others.

Not so obviously to those who disagree with your interpretation.  Interpretations are like aholes.  Everybody has them.

Segregationist certainly did (and probably still do) consider copulation between races to be a sin as outline in their interpretation of the Bible.  This stuff is well documented history and is in the very court cases that were fought.   Doesn't make it right, but certainly makes the comparison to gay marriage and those who fight it on 'religious' grounds a valid comparison.



If the bible is misused and misquoted too much, then maybe it's a bad idea to base our public policy on "biblical principles."
 
2014-01-21 01:57:54 PM
I guess just going to another bakery was out of the question. Are they still waiting for that cake?
 
2014-01-21 01:58:09 PM

totallyfubar: Chummer45

Discrimination against someone for what they are (ex. black) is biblically wrong.  Refusing to participate in a sinful ACT by others is not discrimination.  It would be like a black person asked me to sell them a gun vs. a chinese person asking me to sell them a gun to kill someone.  I would not sell to the one who is going to do something I find morrally wrong but I would sell to the other.



uh.... ok.....?  Nothing about what you said made any sense.
 
2014-01-21 01:58:15 PM
Personally, I would have taken my business elsewhere. The best way to get rid of these bigots is to not give them your business.
 
2014-01-21 01:58:25 PM

Uncontrolled_Jibe: /BTW its quite common that one cannot legally provide food for sale out of a residential kitchen. A visit from the local health board might have been the last nail in the coffin.


It's a thing Underground foodie dining clubs.
 
2014-01-21 01:58:33 PM
Phinn:

That was later erased by control freaks pretending to be smarter than everyone else.

Not smarter than everyone.
 
2014-01-21 01:59:03 PM
BURN IT TO THE GROUND
 
2014-01-21 01:59:11 PM

BMFPitt: Personally, if someone was being a dick to me, I wouldn't sue to be able to give them my business. Quite the opposite.

But welcome to America.


Maybe they are suing for the greater good of future generations not being discriminated against.

Some people can see past "what's in it for me today"
 
2014-01-21 01:59:50 PM

InterruptingQuirk: hardinparamedic: Phinn: When you define what's "protected" by arbitrary rules, then there's no reason "political belief" can't become protected.

Well, cry me a river, Phinn. Until such point that humanity evolves to where it does not make decisions based on inherent stereotypical judgements and racial demographics, protected classes will be necessary.

In reality, our entire country was founded on the ideas of protected classes - namely freedom from religious doctrine in Government dealings, and the idea that the majority's tyranny through "popular opinion" should not determine policy.

"Majority rule, minority rights"



Since when our country was founded we still had slaves and indentured servants, and only landowning (white) men could vote, maybe we shouldn't be so ready to invoke "founding principles" in making our arguments.  Maybe it's better just to say "as an ethical and policy matter and in light of this country's history, we need to protect certain groups from discrimination."
 
2014-01-21 02:00:49 PM

Leishu: If by "arbitrary rules" you mean "the legislative process," then sure. If you can get enough votes that can certainly happen.

But it's a stupid idea, so probably not.



Yeah, you're right.  All legislation is good and right and just.
 
2014-01-21 02:01:22 PM

MJMaloney187: This is such BS.  "Cryer and Bowman filed a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination."

Cryer and Bowman should have their attention-whoring as*es run out of town. Go to a different baker for crying out loud.



And Rosa Parks should have just sat in the back of the god dammed bus!!!!

High five, bro!
 
2014-01-21 02:02:34 PM
Notto

That is an incorrect interpretation obviously. As we all see, the Bible is misused and misquoted too much. Boil it all down, God loves the sinner and hates the sin. So do not contribute to the sinning action of others.

Not so obviously to those who disagree with your interpretation. Interpretations are like aholes. Everybody has them.

Segregationist certainly did (and probably still do) consider copulation between races to be a sin as outline in their interpretation of the Bible. This stuff is well documented history and is in the very court cases that were fought. Doesn't make it right, but certainly makes the comparison to gay marriage and those who fight it on 'religious' grounds a valid comparison.

If the bible is misused and misquoted too much, then maybe it's a bad idea to base our public policy on "biblical principles."



And according to the libs, it never was.
 
2014-01-21 02:02:36 PM
There's a line between being genuinely discriminated against in a way that is malicious and systematic and being a professional victim.  Not being served your wedding cake is not a systematic discrimination.  You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?
 
2014-01-21 02:03:20 PM

Chummer45: InterruptingQuirk: hardinparamedic: Phinn: When you define what's "protected" by arbitrary rules, then there's no reason "political belief" can't become protected.

Well, cry me a river, Phinn. Until such point that humanity evolves to where it does not make decisions based on inherent stereotypical judgements and racial demographics, protected classes will be necessary.

In reality, our entire country was founded on the ideas of protected classes - namely freedom from religious doctrine in Government dealings, and the idea that the majority's tyranny through "popular opinion" should not determine policy.

"Majority rule, minority rights"


Since when our country was founded we still had slaves and indentured servants, and only landowning (white) men could vote, maybe we shouldn't be so ready to invoke "founding principles" in making our arguments.  Maybe it's better just to say "as an ethical and policy matter and in light of this country's history, we need to protect certain groups from discrimination."



Maybe it's better to articulate a legitimate ethical principle, such as "everyone has the right to freely associate with whomever they choose, and no one has the right to force anyone who is peacefully associating to disassociate, nor to force anyone who is declining to associate to associate."

But that would require the capacity for abstract thought, which you haven't demonstrated the ability to employ.
 
2014-01-21 02:04:23 PM

MyRandomName: stpauler: HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.

The only real comeback for this is "fark you, you disgusting sad piece of flapping ass shiat".

You realize that you liberals are acting exactly the same towards religious people, right? Liberals always want respect but never respect the religious views of others. The irony is thick.

Are there really zero other wedding cake designers? This is about liberals trying to fark a religious person over. No more, no less.


My boyfriend is a church-going Catholic. So, no, it's not about religion, it's about bigotry. So fark you and the bigotry you come flying in on.
 
2014-01-21 02:04:30 PM

Chummer45: Phinn: Baz744: In constitutional terms, there is no right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of public services.

There are no "public services."  That's an arbitrary construct, invented for the purpose of justifying the assertion of CONTROL over people's private lives.

And that's what makes you giddy -- control.


Oh jesus christ give me a break.  So are you an anarchist, or do you just think that the government is "tyrannical" whenever it does something that you don't like?


I really wish I could drive 200 mph on the highway.  But the government, drunk on CONTROL, has told me that I can't do that.  When will this tyranny end?  Why can't I dump raw sewage in my front yard - ARE WE NOT A FREE SOCIETY?!?!??!



I was on board with your reasoning until this....

Chummer45: Phinn: Baz744: In constitutional terms, there is no right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of public services.

There are no "public services."  That's an arbitrary construct, invented for the purpose of justifying the assertion of CONTROL over people's private lives.

And that's what makes you giddy -- control.


Oh jesus christ give me a break.  So are you an anarchist, or do you just think that the government is "tyrannical" whenever it does something that you don't like?


I really wish I could drive 200 mph on the highway.  But the government, drunk on CONTROL, has told me that I can't do that.  When will this tyranny end?  Why can't I dump raw sewage in my front yard - ARE WE NOT A FREE SOCIETY?!?!??!



What a governement drunk on control might look like
www.unmuseum.org
What all cakes in the future will look like:
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2014-01-21 02:04:50 PM

DubtodaIll: You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?


Because these lezbos are uppity, breh
 
2014-01-21 02:04:53 PM

SpectroBoy: Rosa Parks should have just sat in the back of the god dammed bus!!!!



Rosa Parks was the victim of government.
 
2014-01-21 02:05:30 PM

Phinn: Baz744: In constitutional terms, there is no right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of public services.

There are no "public services."  That's an arbitrary construct,


These are actually incompatible thoughts. Either "public services" exist, or they do not. You've asserted here first that they do not exist, and second that they exist as an "arbitrary construct."

There is most certainly a legal designation for the public provision of goods and services in commerce. If you sat down in a law library, you could, with sufficient skill, parse out with some precision its full contours.

"Public, commercial services" certainly exists as a coherent concept, independent of the words used to describe it. They would exist whether or not we called them such. Unless you mean to say gravity did not exist before we identified and named it.

You may actually be correct that it was invented as a legal designation for the purposes of justifying control--though not over peoples' private lives, but rather over their public, commercial lives. And it certainly wasn't invented solely to justify control for the sake of control. Most likely it was invented to justify control over the provision of public services for the purpose of regulating some social evil, real or merely perceived.

And that's what makes you giddy -- control.

There two things in this world that actually make me giddy: 1) a certain female partner in an internationally renowned intellectual property law firm, and 2) quality time with my little boy.
 
2014-01-21 02:05:36 PM

Weatherkiss: TrotlineDesigns: I would have just pissed in the cake at the very least.  Funny thing about farking with people that prepare your food.. it isn't a good idea to fark with people that prepare your food.

/had my dog pee in it too.

Congratulations, you just elevated your criminal act from discrimination to something much worse, and will never get licensed from the state health inspector to run a food service business ever again.

Way to stick it to them homoqueers.


Well, first of all I would have made the cake and moved on unless it was a bunch of dildos and what not.. then would have made two one for my wife to have a party with her friends with THAT BEING SAID I'm not good at being forced to do much of anything and yea.. I would have pissed in the cake like the employees spit in the food at McDonalds and don't get charged with criminal offenses and what not.

/Wouldn't be my first time in jail or criminal court
 
2014-01-21 02:05:51 PM
so there's a bakery that makes wedding cakes that doesn't employ gay people.  my question is how good could the cakes possibly be?  the lesbian couple loses points for their poor pastry judgement.
 
2014-01-21 02:05:59 PM

Headso: DubtodaIll: You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?

Because these lezbos are uppity, breh


Just seems selfish to me.
 
2014-01-21 02:06:13 PM

DubtodaIll: There's a line between being genuinely discriminated against in a way that is malicious and systematic and being a professional victim.  Not being served your wedding cake is not a systematic discrimination.  You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?


When one of the bakery owners, Aaron Klein, discovered the cake was for a same-sex marriage, he called the couple "abominations unto the Lord" and made other comments that reduced the fiancée to tears, according to the complaint.
 
2014-01-21 02:06:46 PM

Phinn: SpectroBoy: Rosa Parks should have just sat in the back of the god dammed bus!!!!

Rosa Parks was the victim of government.


treating black people  lesser than white people predates our government.
 
2014-01-21 02:06:50 PM

doubled99: I guess just going to another bakery was out of the question. Are they still waiting for that cake?


I guess just sitting in the back of the bus was out of the question. Is Rosa Parks still waiting for that bus?
 
2014-01-21 02:07:06 PM

Phinn: Our entire country was founded on one of the essential "rights of Englishmen" -- the freedom of association and its commercial application, freedom of contract.


Our country was also founded on the notion that, for certain bookkeeping purposes, people aren't always full people. The principle of its founding was that The People know how to govern themselves. Full stop.

If 3/4 of the state legislatures decided that Amendment 1 was too silly to keep around, the Founders would have no choice but to accept that We The People knew what the hell we were doing. Madison specifically said they'd prefer if we didn't rely on divinations of their minds (something about preferring not to attach religious significance to them and theirs) to figure it out.

That was later erased by control freaks pretending to be smarter than everyone else.

Sure. It's not like using the power of the state on the one hand to require business to get a license means you can't use the power on the other hand to ensure that any licensed business serves all of the people who granted that license - that would mean disenfranchising the proud business owners at the expense of the people that created, staffed, and enforced the law that separates their business assets from their private assets, the law that creates the rules and requirements of licensure, and the people that staff the courts they use to enforce or dissolve their contracts.

But I've had too many arguments with libertarians to continue. You don't think the state should have any power at all. So, we're done.
 
2014-01-21 02:07:13 PM

TrotlineDesigns: I would have pissed in the cake like the employees spit in the food at McDonalds and don't get charged with criminal offenses and what not.

/Wouldn't be my first time in jail or criminal court


www.danielyerelian.com
 
2014-01-21 02:07:36 PM
Fark is a weird place where Christians are the ultimate trump card.

Contrast this to the douchey-hipster article who wants government to prevent his neighbors from chopping down trees on their property because he likes those trees.  The Fark brigade is almost universally against the hipster douche siding with private property rights.

Then there's this case, where a lesbian couple wants government to force a baker to participate in a gay wedding, and because the baker is Christian, the same people are ready to feed him to the dogs.

If there's ever a case where cops beat the snot out of anti-abortion demonstrators, the whole universe might divide by zero following the cognitive dissonance coming from fark.
 
2014-01-21 02:07:49 PM

MyRandomName: The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you.


I thought you fake Libertarians loved the free market. You do realize that a Boycott is exactly that, right? The free market at work.

 Yet if any person attempted an economic boycott of a minority business, you would be outraged.

More likely we wouldn't notice, as the number of people with a lower IQ than their shoe size in the US is well beyond three standard deviations out, I think, these days. In order for a Boycott to work, it can't just be one or two mouthbreathers doing it, but you tell us how well your one idiot boycott of the Attractive and Successful African Americans goes, okay? I'm sure you'll make Stormfront's front page and have tens of fans.
 
2014-01-21 02:08:04 PM

WillJM8528: Personally, I would have taken my business elsewhere. The best way to get rid of these bigots is to not give them your business.


That doesn't make them any more of a bigot than you are.  They should have a right in America to not do business with them as long as they aren't getting any government monies.
That whole 'right to refuse service' thing..

/No Shirts, No Shoes, No Service
//No more than 2 school aged children in store at one time
///I could go on
 
2014-01-21 02:08:11 PM

DubtodaIll: There's a line between being genuinely discriminated against in a way that is malicious and systematic and being a professional victim.  Not being served your wedding cake is not a systematic discrimination.  You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?


To make an example of them and hopefully (like happened here) drive them out of business so that a business owner who will follow the law can take their place in the market.  It really is a win for everyone.

If tax dollars are going to provide infrastructure for business, that business cannot refuse service to the community providing it the privilege of using that infrastructure.  Having a business that is a public accommodation and that uses public resources is not a right, it is a privilege bound by laws, licencing, and codes.

It is just these bigoted cakemakers that got 'screwed'.  Law abiding cakemakers will take their place.
 
2014-01-21 02:09:39 PM

Baz744: You may actually be correct that it was invented as a legal designation for the purposes of justifying control--though not over peoples' private lives, but rather over their public, commercial lives.



By labeling certain behavior "public," the government purported to legitimately assert control.  That's what "public" and "private" mean -- areas that can legitimately be controlled by government, and those that can't.  It's the same concept, using two different sets of words.

Do try to keep up.
 
2014-01-21 02:09:50 PM

Witty_Retort: DubtodaIll: There's a line between being genuinely discriminated against in a way that is malicious and systematic and being a professional victim.  Not being served your wedding cake is not a systematic discrimination.  You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?

When one of the bakery owners, Aaron Klein, discovered the cake was for a same-sex marriage, he called the couple "abominations unto the Lord" and made other comments that reduced the fiancée to tears, according to the complaint.


Feelings are inconsequential.
 
2014-01-21 02:10:08 PM
Why don't these people just give a price quote that's say 30 percent higher than normal? Not big enough to be directly noticeable, it'll just seem like they are a higher priced bakery and no couple getting married is just getting quotes from one bakery and will most likely not go with the highest price quote. If for some reason they do decide go with your bakery then you've just made extra profit that can be donated to a christian charity if they really feel bad. Instead they have to attention whore about god.
 
2014-01-21 02:10:13 PM

Mr. Right: So can a pro-abortion bakery owner be forced to make a Right To Life cake?  Can a black bakery owner be forced to make a cake for the anniversary celebration of the local KKK chapter?  Can a Kosher bakery owner be forced to bake a cake for a Neo-Nazi party?

Regardless of one's position on gay marriage, this kind of lawsuit should be cause for concern to anyone who believes in free association.


Bears repeating.  These may not be among the special "protected classes", but all it would take is one lawsuit to change that.  Can't say I want to see this, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Ultimately, going to another bakery would've been the best option.  Instead, this couple has basically just intensified the divisiveness, rather than being the bigger people and moving on.  They may "win", but many people who are distrustful of what they call the "homosexual agenda" will now feel all the more justified in their views, rather than having an example that may be used against them.

But then, I guess I can't say I'm surprised.  Lawsuits are the weapons of the weak and get-rich-quick-schemers, and a jury trial for people who disagree with how others live their lives over a cake is exactly the kind of thing that makes people think of tyranny rather than education and open-mindedness.
 
2014-01-21 02:10:17 PM

SpectroBoy: MJMaloney187: This is such BS.  "Cryer and Bowman filed a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination."

Cryer and Bowman should have their attention-whoring as*es run out of town. Go to a different baker for crying out loud.


And Rosa Parks should have just sat in the back of the god dammed bus!!!!

High five, bro!


For your information, Boy, Rosa Parks violated the direction of the bus driver. That's why she was arrested. Back then, bus drivers were the equivalent of flight attendants. If you're on a plane and the flight attendant says, "move" - for whatever reason - see what happens when you refuse.

Cryer and Bowman are attention whoring. Double synchronized period.
 
2014-01-21 02:10:44 PM
Some friends and I werent allowed in a club in Germany one night. When we asked the door man why he said "You are Americans and you steal all the women." So I too, have known the sting of bigotry. We just laughed it off and went to the bar next door and spent our money there. But none of us were looking to be victims we just wanted to get drunk and chase women.
 
2014-01-21 02:10:59 PM

stpauler: MyRandomName: stpauler: HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.

The only real comeback for this is "fark you, you disgusting sad piece of flapping ass shiat".

You realize that you liberals are acting exactly the same towards religious people, right? Liberals always want respect but never respect the religious views of others. The irony is thick.

Are there really zero other wedding cake designers? This is about liberals trying to fark a religious person over. No more, no less.

My boyfriend is a church-going Catholic. So, no, it's not about religion, it's about bigotry. So fark you and the bigotry you come flying in on.

A

re you two engaging in pre-martital sex?  If so, then he is not a good Catholic boy and your opinoin is moot.
 
2014-01-21 02:10:59 PM

Phinn: Leishu: If by "arbitrary rules" you mean "the legislative process," then sure. If you can get enough votes that can certainly happen.

But it's a stupid idea, so probably not.

Yeah, you're right.  All legislation is good and right and just.


Yeah you're right. Girls who wear short skirts deserved to be rapes and White people are oppressed.

We were playing the "I can't think of an intelligent thing to say so I'll just make shiat up" game, right?
 
2014-01-21 02:11:06 PM

Phinn: Baz744: The baker may permissibly delegate the task he finds distasteful to an employee. Or, he may choose not to publicly sell baked goods at all.

That's not for you to say, control freak.


In case you're wondering, I'm confident of two facts:

1) that your baseless, unprovoked personal attacks have no impact on my self-perception, and

2) that your baseless, unprovoked personal attacks have no effect on most other readers besides diminishing their evaluation of your character, or your position.
 
2014-01-21 02:11:15 PM

karnal: I guess my sense of capitalism trumps any of my beliefs...If I owned a bakery I would sale a cake to anyone.....well, except the Irish.


That's not really discrimination because if you owned a bakery you most likely wouldn't even havea liquor licence.
 
2014-01-21 02:12:06 PM
*raped, not that it matters that much when dealing with somebody possessed of the apparent literacy of a dead hamster.
 
2014-01-21 02:12:13 PM

Billygoat Gruff: Some friends and I werent allowed in a club in Germany one night. When we asked the door man why he said "You are Americans and you steal all the women." So I too, have known the sting of bigotry. We just laughed it off and went to the bar next door and spent our money there. But none of us were looking to be victims we just wanted to get drunk and chase women.


That's unfortunate, I thought Germany had a high reputation for being open and tolerant of other nationalities.
 
2014-01-21 02:13:26 PM
TrotlineDesigns:

They should have a right in America to not do business with them as long as they aren't getting any government monies.

They are getting public money via infrastructure and they are taking a spot in the market that could easily be filled by a business willing to follow the laws and accommodate the full community that provides them this infrastructure.
 
2014-01-21 02:13:48 PM

SpectroBoy: BMFPitt: Personally, if someone was being a dick to me, I wouldn't sue to be able to give them my business. Quite the opposite.

But welcome to America.

Maybe they are suing for the greater good of future generations not being discriminated against.

Some people can see past "what's in it for me today"


Telling the internet about these asshats ran them effectively out of business, as it should have.

Taking it to court makes the couple worse than the bakery.
 
2014-01-21 02:14:06 PM

Baz744: your baseless, unprovoked personal attacks have no impact on my self-perception



You're openly supporting the use of force against peaceful people, all because you don't like their cake-making decisions!

That makes you an asshole.  Calling you an asshole is therefore neither baseless nor unprovoked.


Baz744: your baseless, unprovoked personal attacks have no effect on most other readers besides diminishing their evaluation of your character, or your position



Your opinions have no impact on my self-perception.
 
Displayed 50 of 676 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report