CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay...

CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple Wedding Cake - May Face a Year in Jail

There are 16411 comments on the Gateway Pundit story from Dec 8, 2013, titled CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple Wedding Cake - May Face a Year in Jail. In it, Gateway Pundit reports that:

Gay activists protest the Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2012. Owner Jack Phillips now faces charges for not baking a cake for the gay couple.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Gateway Pundit.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#14627 Jun 18, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Commie petty boo boo 1313, comes up with some pretty bizarre assertions having nothing to do with reality doesn't he.
I see he is back to worshiping the parasites he voted for and the laws they passed. The only sin in petty boo boo's mind is breaking a law those scum-bags he voted for wrote and will send trained killers to make sure you obey them.
Anyone who votes for those corrupt liars and thieves are nothing more than crooks and he loves them, worships them and has made them Gods. And you know how people who believe in Gods are, if you don't join them in worshiping their God they want to kill you.
Petty boo boo's love of his God, the Government, is what is behind his insanity.
That sure was a strange post the young lad composed eh? "Just because it has gamy in it doesn't make it marriage". In other words polygamy is not marriage in Petey's bizarro world. Because it's not legal you see. He went to the Poop1 school of logic.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#14628 Jun 18, 2014
Poof1 wrote:
<quoted text>I pointed out that polygamy is in fact still illegal, now there must be a reason. Could it be that no one has challenged the law? Or could it be that the case in Canada will hold true in the US as well ? It looks as if justification to keep polygamy illegal is in place. You may not like that , but that may in fact be the case. Here is the bottom line, until people like the Brown family challenge the laws banning polygamy, nothing will change. Your so called discussion really isn't worth the hard drive space.
This is funny stuff Poop1. Polygamy is illegal therefore it should be against the law.

YUK!YUK!YUK! What a dope! This is why I like you silly jackasses.Ah good times!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#14629 Jun 18, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
No, because it doesn't necessarily involve marriage at all. Civil marriage is not the same as religious or other forms of marriage. Illegal marriage isn't the same as legal marriage. Just because "-gamy" is used doesn't make it a marital issue.
Petty boo boo believes we are all in the 3rd grade and he has appointed himself our teacher. You would think that one of the smartest men in American, an expert in "english", would realize that by making some irrelevant obvious assertion does not make him look all-knowing but instead the opposite.

The ONLY issue at hand here commie petty boo boo, is that of protecting the rights of the individual or violating them. Because you know it is wrong to violate the rights of others you simple voted for people to do your dirty work for you. That makes you just as guilty in crimes against humanity as the parasitic scumbags you voted for who actually commit the crimes.

You see reality backwards petty boo boo. Everything you were taught to believe is wrong. Just like everything the KKKrist-insanity-ists were taught is wrong. Talk about birds of a feather and two peas in a pod!!!

You are not an atheist petty boo boo as you have a God, the same God most Christians, Jews, etc have and that is the Government. The KKKristians worship the same God you do, you both believe the same things and you are both wrong. Everything you believe is wrong. Everything.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#14630 Jun 18, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Please present your case that it is.
SCOTUS, Flunkie..........

Not you, not me

SCOTUS

Remember Reynolds?
The Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not meet that standard. The principle that a person could only be married singly, not plurally, existed since the times of King James I of England in English law, upon which United States law was based.

There is no right to polygamy.

Now..... continue pissing into the wind.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#14631 Jun 18, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Circular reasoning.
hahahahaha
ahhahahahaha
ahhahahaha

No it isn't.

Your understanding of logic is HILARIOUS!
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#14632 Jun 18, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Petty boo boo believes we are all in the 3rd grade and he has appointed himself our teacher. You would think that one of the smartest men in American, an expert in "english", would realize that by making some irrelevant obvious assertion does not make him look all-knowing but instead the opposite.
The ONLY issue at hand here commie petty boo boo, is that of protecting the rights of the individual or violating them. Because you know it is wrong to violate the rights of others you simple voted for people to do your dirty work for you. That makes you just as guilty in crimes against humanity as the parasitic scumbags you voted for who actually commit the crimes.
You see reality backwards petty boo boo. Everything you were taught to believe is wrong. Just like everything the KKKrist-insanity-ists were taught is wrong. Talk about birds of a feather and two peas in a pod!!!
You are not an atheist petty boo boo as you have a God, the same God most Christians, Jews, etc have and that is the Government. The KKKristians worship the same God you do, you both believe the same things and you are both wrong. Everything you believe is wrong. Everything.
Hubris

Everything you believe is stupid. How about that?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#14633 Jun 18, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
This is funny stuff Poop1. Polygamy is illegal therefore it should be against the law.
YUK!YUK!YUK! What a dope! This is why I like you silly jackasses.Ah good times!
Flunkie and his straw men..........
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#14634 Jun 18, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds catchy and official though. "Polygamy seeks greater protection!" That's why lies made it up. Trying to fool us, the big fibber!
Three IS greater than two.

You can argue against that if you like.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#14635 Jun 18, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Legalizing polygamy and bringing it out of the shadows will reduce any of these crimes and make them easier to prosecute.
Of course, that is merely your opinion, of which you offer no proof.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
As it is women and children are afraid to go to the cops because their families are illegal. Also there are perfectly good existing laws against these crimes. Prosecute criminals. Not marriages.
Sorry, kiddo. There is no reason why the state should be compelled to recognize polygamous marriages or grant any extraordinary protection for three or more people to marry. The burden of proof is really upon you if you wish to legalize polygamy. Were you not an idiot, you could offer an on topic argument, as this is not a thread about polygamy.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Do you want to ban SSM if someone in a SSM commits a crime? Of course not! Then why do it to polygamy other than that you're a bigot and a hypocrite.
Thank you, Frankie, that was short,yet pointless.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Making someone's choice of family illegal and subject to prison really sucks and you suck for supporting that.
Frankie, I am not the one seeking extraordinary protection of the law.Feel free to make a case in favor of polygamy, just make it in a forum where it is relevant to the topic.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Now please explain this "greater" protection that you think polygamists seek.
Frankie, are more than three people involved in a polygamous marriage? Do the math, kiddo. This really isn't difficult to grasp if one is smarter than a six year old.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#14636 Jun 18, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course there is a reason.
· A non-trivial increase in the incidence of polygyny, which is quite plausible if polygyny were legalized given what we know about both male and female mating preferences, would result in increased crime and antisocial behaviour by the pool of unmarried males it would create.

· Greater degrees of polygyny drive down the age of first marriage for (all) females on average, and increase the age gap between husbands and wives. This generally leads to females marrying before age 18, or being “promised” in marriage prior to age 18.

· Greater degrees of polygyny are associated with increased inequality between the sexes, and the relationship may be causal as men seek more control over women when women become scarce.

· Polygynous men invest less in their offspring both because they have more offspring and because they continue to invest in seeking additional wives. This implies that, on average, children in a more polygynous society will receive less parental investment.

· Greater degrees of polygynous marriage may reduce national wealth (GDP) per capita both because of the manner in which male efforts are shifted to obtaining more wives and because of the increase in female fertility.

Polygyny’s Creation of a Pool of Unmarried Low-Status Men

[507] The first of these expected consequences is an increase in crime that would arise from the creation of a pool of unmarried low-status men. Since these men would find it difficult to acquire a wife, they would be “incentivized to take substantial risks so they [could] eventually participate in the mating and marriage market”; one aspect of these “substantial risks” appears to include criminal activity.

Polygyny’s Effects on Male Parental Investment

[518] Another major predicted consequence of widespread polygyny is decreased male parental investment. The underlying theory is that since married men would remain perennially in the marriage market, high-status men could choose to invest their resources in acquiring more wives rather than investing in their children. Similarly, the pool of unmarried men would be forced to invest their resources in attempting to improve their status so as to improve their chances of finding a bride.

Polygyny, Age of marriage, the Age Gap and Gender Equality

[523] A third major consequence of polygyny identified by Dr. Henrich is the flipside to the creation of a pool of unmarried men: the increased demand for brides. This, he says, would lead to a decreased age of marriage for women, and an increased age disparity between husbands and wives (even in monogamous marriages). Unless a polygynous community were able to recruit from the outside, the extraordinary demand for wives could only be met by decreasing the age of marriage for women.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#14637 Jun 18, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS, Flunkie..........
Not you, not me
SCOTUS
Remember Reynolds?
The Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not meet that standard. The principle that a person could only be married singly, not plurally, existed since the times of King James I of England in English law, upon which United States law was based.
There is no right to polygamy.
Now..... continue pissing into the wind.
Yup. 19th Century. Like I said.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#14638 Jun 18, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
hahahahaha
ahhahahahaha
ahhahahaha
No it isn't.
Your understanding of logic is HILARIOUS!
Alright! I got 3 lines of insane cackle Rev Alan! The party is on.

So you're using that straw man already? Frankie is wrong about polygamy because his understanding of logic is hilarious eh?

Get a real argument.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#14639 Jun 18, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
· A non-trivial increase in the incidence of polygyny, which is quite plausible if polygyny were legalized given what we know about both male and female mating preferences, would result in increased crime and antisocial behaviour by the pool of unmarried males it would create.
· Greater degrees of polygyny drive down the age of first marriage for (all) females on average, and increase the age gap between husbands and wives. This generally leads to females marrying before age 18, or being “promised” in marriage prior to age 18.
· Greater degrees of polygyny are associated with increased inequality between the sexes, and the relationship may be causal as men seek more control over women when women become scarce.
· Polygynous men invest less in their offspring both because they have more offspring and because they continue to invest in seeking additional wives. This implies that, on average, children in a more polygynous society will receive less parental investment.
· Greater degrees of polygynous marriage may reduce national wealth (GDP) per capita both because of the manner in which male efforts are shifted to obtaining more wives and because of the increase in female fertility.
Polygyny’s Creation of a Pool of Unmarried Low-Status Men
[507] The first of these expected consequences is an increase in crime that would arise from the creation of a pool of unmarried low-status men. Since these men would find it difficult to acquire a wife, they would be “incentivized to take substantial risks so they [could] eventually participate in the mating and marriage market”; one aspect of these “substantial risks” appears to include criminal activity.
Polygyny’s Effects on Male Parental Investment
[518] Another major predicted consequence of widespread polygyny is decreased male parental investment. The underlying theory is that since married men would remain perennially in the marriage market, high-status men could choose to invest their resources in acquiring more wives rather than investing in their children. Similarly, the pool of unmarried men would be forced to invest their resources in attempting to improve their status so as to improve their chances of finding a bride.
Polygyny, Age of marriage, the Age Gap and Gender Equality
[523] A third major consequence of polygyny identified by Dr. Henrich is the flipside to the creation of a pool of unmarried men: the increased demand for brides. This, he says, would lead to a decreased age of marriage for women, and an increased age disparity between husbands and wives (even in monogamous marriages). Unless a polygynous community were able to recruit from the outside, the extraordinary demand for wives could only be met by decreasing the age of marriage for women.
Yeah but honey, it's the 21st Century. Sh!t's changed. Please tell us how a marriage of five or six men will create an extraordinary demand for wives. Then please tell us how a marriage of one woman and five men will create an extraordinary demand for wives.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#14640 Jun 18, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
· A non-trivial increase in the incidence of polygyny, which is quite plausible if polygyny were legalized given what we know about both male and female mating preferences, would result in increased crime and antisocial behaviour by the pool of unmarried males it would create.
· Greater degrees of polygyny drive down the age of first marriage for (all) females on average, and increase the age gap between husbands and wives. This generally leads to females marrying before age 18, or being “promised” in marriage prior to age 18.
· Greater degrees of polygyny are associated with increased inequality between the sexes, and the relationship may be causal as men seek more control over women when women become scarce.
· Polygynous men invest less in their offspring both because they have more offspring and because they continue to invest in seeking additional wives. This implies that, on average, children in a more polygynous society will receive less parental investment.
· Greater degrees of polygynous marriage may reduce national wealth (GDP) per capita both because of the manner in which male efforts are shifted to obtaining more wives and because of the increase in female fertility.
Polygyny’s Creation of a Pool of Unmarried Low-Status Men
[507] The first of these expected consequences is an increase in crime that would arise from the creation of a pool of unmarried low-status men. Since these men would find it difficult to acquire a wife, they would be “incentivized to take substantial risks so they [could] eventually participate in the mating and marriage market”; one aspect of these “substantial risks” appears to include criminal activity.
Polygyny’s Effects on Male Parental Investment
[518] Another major predicted consequence of widespread polygyny is decreased male parental investment. The underlying theory is that since married men would remain perennially in the marriage market, high-status men could choose to invest their resources in acquiring more wives rather than investing in their children. Similarly, the pool of unmarried men would be forced to invest their resources in attempting to improve their status so as to improve their chances of finding a bride.
Polygyny, Age of marriage, the Age Gap and Gender Equality
[523] A third major consequence of polygyny identified by Dr. Henrich is the flipside to the creation of a pool of unmarried men: the increased demand for brides. This, he says, would lead to a decreased age of marriage for women, and an increased age disparity between husbands and wives (even in monogamous marriages). Unless a polygynous community were able to recruit from the outside, the extraordinary demand for wives could only be met by decreasing the age of marriage for women.
How do you feel when you argue against marriage equality? Hypocritical, or do you successfully rationalize it away with your appeals to tradition?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#14641 Jun 18, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Yeah but honey, it's the 21st Century. Sh!t's changed. Please tell us how a marriage of five or six men will create an extraordinary demand for wives. Then please tell us how a marriage of one woman and five men will create an extraordinary demand for wives.
First, tell us how it is relevant to the topic at hand?

Frankie, you are clearly a troll bent upon disrupting the thread, nothing more. You have neither anything of substance to offer, nor do you have the remotest ability to remain on topic.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#14642 Jun 18, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
First, tell us how it is relevant to the topic at hand?
Frankie, you are clearly a troll bent upon disrupting the thread, nothing more. You have neither anything of substance to offer, nor do you have the remotest ability to remain on topic.
Same sex marriage is a done deal son. Now let's move on to other good people suffering the same injustice as you did.'K cowboy?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#14643 Jun 18, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. First, tell us how it is relevant to the topic at hand?
2.. bent upon disrupting the thread
1. Shut up, fool. The topic is marriage.
2. Translation, not agreeing with your idiocy.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#14644 Jun 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
1. Shut up, fool. The topic is marriage.
2. Translation, not agreeing with your idiocy.
Do you actually bother to read posts in context? That was actually the point of the post, namely that Frankie had, in their own troll like way, diverged from the topic at hand.

You are hardly one to talk about remaining on topic, I don't think you have made on on topic post in months, preferring instead to resort to infantile ad hominem attacks.

How's that hunt for a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry going, Wondering?

Are you even capable of attempting to make an on topic argument?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#14645 Jun 18, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you actually bother to read posts in context? That was actually the point of the post, namely that Frankie had, in their own troll like way, diverged from the topic at hand.
You are hardly one to talk about remaining on topic, I don't think you have made on on topic post in months, preferring instead to resort to infantile ad hominem attacks.
How's that hunt for a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry going, Wondering?
Are you even capable of attempting to make an on topic argument?
You are diverging from the topic at hand, lad.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#14646 Jun 18, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Old Poop1's reasoning. Polygamy should not be allowed because it's illegal.
And following that "reasoning" gay marriage should not be allowed because it was illegal. Sounds just like the KKKristians to me. I knew we'd get around to the gays and the KKKristians being birds of a feather and two peas in a pod. They all worship the same God too! Government is their God.

You see proof of this all the time when scumbag con-artists stand up in front of their pew warmers and preach the worship of government over the worship of Biblegod. Bible God says "do not kill", and the scumbag con-artists applaud those criminals they elected when they drop bombs on dark skinned people. So who is their real God here, the God who says "Do not kill" or the one who drops the bombs, buys the guns and teaches young men how to load, aim and fire?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Greens against gay marriage plebiscite The Gree... 58 min Rosa_Winkel 5
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 16
News How Donald Trump is slowly teaching Republicans... 10 hr Lawrence Wolf 48
News Can a new chief rabbi change the Israeli Rabbin... (Apr '13) 15 hr indict robert mercer 18
News Pastors Rarely Asked to Wed Same-Sex Couples 19 hr Humpty Dumpty 76
News Judge who said she wouldn't marry gays fights b... Thu okimar 19
News Straight Talk: Young husband's cheating is agon... (Mar '12) Thu Dump his ass 5
More from around the web