Are you kidding? I stated twice that I handled it wrong! I would ask you if you had the same condemnation for they way she acted?
First off, I don't remember who insulted you, I just remember you broke one of the rules.
Are you kidding? I stated twice that I handled it wrong! I would ask you if you had the same condemnation for they way she acted?
You read it again, you were still assigning blame for your actions, she made me do it, is not accepting personal responsibility for your actions. I don't think if there is a final judgement that will be an acceptable answer.
First off, I don't remember who insulted you, I just remember you broke one of the rules.
Wrong again it was anger, which is wrong. I could have handled it differently, I did not that, was a mistake which I regret
this is the statement you should have made which acknowledges your actions.
As did she by trolling, but because it was against someone you disagreed with you allowed it to continue, much of what of what she said had nothing to do with the subject matter.
Yes, you got bannedDo you agree that actions have consequences?
So they paid their fine on Monday then just before Christmas the government took more? That's not right.
Well, this is true, in a way. I would have preferred the free market to reject their premise and their business to die a natural death. Instead they got people to "help" them pay after they appealed as martyrs.
And I think the government may wind up paying for seizing funds after they paid their fine plus interest earlier that week. That is double jeopardy, you can't make them pay punitive fines twice just because you want to stop them from buying gifts during the Winter Solstice holidays.
Because he plays the race card, and evidently forgets who he is!
If that's the true story, it ain't right. It came from the blaze so I wonder.
They should sue for 1,380,000.00 + Lawyers fees and then settle for 10% + Lawyers fees.
I've already done so many times, the reason you were banned is also proof that you talk the talk but don't walk the walk.
They baked the cake, they just didn't letter it, it is a compromise I can live with. Just like the bakers, bake the cake, let the gay couple put their figurines on top themselves.
You do like the one person did, you tell them you will bake the cake, give them the frosting necessary to write their own hateful message. You still provide the cake, just not the message.
I do believe you can compromise, sorry, you want it all or nothing and it doesn't have to be that way. They can have their cakes, but with a compromise.Nice try but no cigar. This is not a.compromise situation. You don't pay the baker for an unfinished product.
Freedom isn't always pleasant. Free association perhaps means the freedom not to associate.
Take a less toxic subject, motorcycle club members in your resturant. Sure they're just suburban guys who enjoy riding expensive toys but some only see leather and chains. Hit the road or take the money.
Or the kids soccer team, loud and boisterous.
Who's rights rule ?
I would welcome both motorcycle clubs and soccer teams, you can always ask them to leave if they get too obnoxious, but to refuse to serve them because you assume they will be boisterous is wrong.I do believe you can compromise, sorry, you want it all or nothing and it doesn't have to be that way. They can have their cakes, but with a compromise.
Sue who?
The Blaze for misrepresenting the facts in the case?
The leftardiots act like there aren't 100 other bakeshops out there that these queers could have gone to. Does anyone ask "why this bake shop"? Surely the queers knew that they were Christians? Couldn't the queers go elsewhere?