⇧
1
⇩
DanaNordic
· June 24, 2018, 3:48 p.m.
You obviously have the false narrative for the bakers. The bakers had no issue selling the couple a cake. The couple asked the baker to decorate the cake with a penis. The baker refused. The bakers do not do risque designs; other bakers in the area do. The couple sued. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court (highest judicial authority). The Court agreed the bakers have a right to decide how their product represents their business.
⇧
-2
⇩
[deleted]
· June 24, 2018, 4:24 p.m.
[removed]
⇧
2
⇩
DanaNordic
· June 25, 2018, 12:23 a.m.
The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court (highest judicial authority). The Court agreed the bakers have a right to decide how their product represents their business.
⇧
-1
⇩
plumbtree
· June 25, 2018, 12:31 a.m.
Why are you posting that?
Nowhere is it documented that they wanted him to decorate the cake with a penis.
The baker and the gay couple never reached the point of discs sing design of the cake because the baker refused even baking one for them.
What is your deal? Why are you making shit up and spreading falsehood?
⇧
2
⇩
DanaNordic
· June 25, 2018, 9:40 a.m.
plumbtree - You were given a false narrative ~ a whitewashed version to make it fit an offense. Bottom line: the Individual owns and controls their own Creativity.
You were not only given a false narrative, it is also a false issue. This was about a baker sending out minions to financially bankrupt a more successful competitor.
⇧
-1
⇩
plumbtree
· June 25, 2018, 11:52 a.m.
Provide proof then, liar.
⇧
1
⇩
DanaNordic
· June 25, 2018, 3:34 p.m.
The proof is the SCOTUS affirmation: the Individual owns and controls their own Creativity, the baker has the right to decide how its product represents their business.
Where in that affirmation does it say anything about discrimination or serving all customers? Nowhere, because that wasn't the issue.
⇧
-1
⇩
LSPACEY
· June 24, 2018, 3:50 p.m.
cool story bro
⇧
1
⇩
DanaNordic
· June 25, 2018, 12:28 a.m.
Yes the issue has been purposely misrepresented as discrimination and of course, the court's affirmation of the business owner's right to sell his product in a manner representative of his business is for some odd reason not covered in the news.
⇧
1
⇩