Ooooh boy! I just love to get on the exmo board and take a defensive position on something controversial, moral, etc...that runs contrary to the law, human decency, kindness, and love.

I love to throw out straw men, red herrings, false claims and evidence, to rile up the regular posters.

Its so fun to goad them into responding to my absurdity with their well researched facts, impeccable logic, and altruistic views.

What a bunch of idiots!

I'm so smart and clever!

Others may benefit from the discussion. No matter the motivations of the one playing games. A reader somewhere may encounter an idea they have never come across before.

Although trollishness is not welcome here and hopefully most of it will be cleaned up if noted.

Agreed. Just trying to express what might be the troll's motivation......to the potential benefit of others, as you pointed out :)

Why would you do that?

I think there's an awful lot of sock puppets too.

I agree.

Lots of brand new monikers, some very similar writing styles. It's hard to know how many of these newcomers are mere trolls and how many are regular posters who don't want to own their provocations.

Yeah, one of them (falsely) said in thread he'd gotten me to admit to something in another thread...in that other thread, it was a different name being used. How about that.

Susan I/S used to get after the sock puppets. Don't know if it's difficult or easy (I suspect difficult), but most of the antagonistic posts lately have had very similar styles of posting. So I suspect it's not a lot of people.

I only post as hello or hellonli. Mostly, hello...

hello Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I only post as hello or hellonli. Mostly, hello...



I thought that Hellonli was King Lamoni's kid brother.

Yeah I loved that about Susan I/S ... she'd call people

out for using a sock puppet. She had a really good handle

on who was who and who was a sock puppet.

I didn't even think jonny made threads.

I make threads. I don't make cakes. I like pie. But if a gay couple asked me to make a cake for their wedding, I would.

If I was a baker, I would too

Jonny the Smoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I make threads. I don't make cakes. I like pie.
> But if a gay couple asked me to make a cake for
> their wedding, I would.

I don't see a problem with making a cake for a gay couple. Not sure what that's about i don't watch television.

Not the cake.

Your comment!

If I was a baker I would too myself.

But I'd go out of business because nobody would be lining up for my cakes. A baker I ain't.

Unlike all those Mormon men in temple wearing baker's hats!

Or maybe they can't bake either. They just wear the hats and pretend they do. Kinda like false advertising.

Haha. If we're devolving to this level of silly it must be Friday. Oh yeah, it is. That's why everybody's talking about martinis.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or maybe they can't bake either. They just wear
> the hats and pretend they do. Kinda like false
> advertising.

Little known fact:

The original temple rituals were:

"Pat-a-cake, pat-a-cake, baker's man..."

With the accompany tokens and symbols:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lq0mRxKPSoU

But when 14 year-old Helen Mar Kimball told Joe that was "immature," he went off and joined the Freemasons so he could rip off some more seasoned secret passwords. And the rest is history.

I swear, it's true!

<grin>

Hahahahaha now that's humor but maybe actually true.

Chuckle

I get a kick out of when it happens.

A "Dr. Phil" replied to me in another thread. He was snarky, and I was tempted to ask him who peed in his cheerios. lol

angela Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A "Dr. Phil" replied to me in another thread. He
> was snarky, and I was tempted to ask him who peed
> in his cheerios. lol

General Mills shouldn't be "forced" to make cheerios for people who will pee in them...

<grin>

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> angela Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A "Dr. Phil" replied to me in another thread.
> He
> > was snarky, and I was tempted to ask him who
> peed
> > in his cheerios. lol
>
> General Mills shouldn't be "forced" to make
> cheerios for people who will pee in them...
>
>

LOL.....

Beauty!

Right now I would just like somebody to be forced to make me a Martini. Not a cake. A Martini. With an olive AND a twist. Gay, Mormon, straight, somebody's dog--I don't care who--just so they are *forced * to do it. Cuz, that's what we're after. :)

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right now I would just like somebody to be forced
> to make me a Martini. Not a cake. A Martini.
> With an olive AND a twist. Gay, Mormon, straight,
> somebody's dog--I don't care who--just so they are
> *forced * to do it. Cuz, that's what we're after.
> :)

make it two, please

I third the martini.

I'm here for the martini party!

As long as we're all adults let's get naked too!

Are you sure you want that????

Sure I do. Moderns are so shamed by their bodies it is a shame.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you sure you want that????


With enough martinis down, who will care?

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2018 06:07PM by nomonomo.

I've been slammin' 'em back since noon!

Just kidding, but I'll have mine shaken, not stirred

Your moniker is "Done & Done". That's just like Doug & Doug or Donna & Donna.

No martini for you!

No. It means I get a double. One for each hand.

I see the wisdom in your words. Just don't let one hand hold the other.....that would be so gay!

Jonny the Smoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see the wisdom in your words. Just don't let
> one hand hold the other.....that would be so gay!

So no cakes for him then!

(love ya, D&D!)

Nope. None, nada, zero, zilch! :)

He can have pie though, right?

All he can eat.....as long as he doesn't use his hands (if they hold each other they could be gay you know).

Pie is always good, cake is sometimes evil :)

Are holes always evil? That is unless you CTR the hole?

I have a pie hole. Is that what you're asking about?

just wondering about Johnny's thinking cake is evil.

Cake by the ocean is great.

I never got a chance to get back about Muslim bakeries. A couple of years ago, I saw a video of a newscaster who went into a Muslim bakery and asked for a wedding cake for himself and his gay fiance. The Muslim baker said NO right away, but was willing to sell/bake other things for him. Then he went over to a woman in a head scarf and requested the wedding cake for his male intended and himself. She too refused, though politely.

Then I checked on Google. There was a case of an ex-Muslim turned Christian who went into a Muslim bakery to request a wedding cake for himself and his male fiance (he didn't have one, but that's beside the point). He was refused in no uncertain terms. I'm not sure if he made a video like the other guy, but he was trying to point out how the religious consciences of Muslims are protected, while those of Christians are not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2018 07:02PM by brigidbarnes.

Well the person being refused has to bring a complaint and try to get a lawsuit going, not just post a story about his encounter. That's how the lesbian couple in Oregon got their money.

This discussion is ridiculous! Silly, just silly!

Felix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This discussion is ridiculous! Silly, just silly!


Here...have a martini, or two. It gets sillier

I've been on many boards over the years, and they all turn into religions with certain doctrine.

Like the morg, when someone challenges such doctrine, they are accused of being anti-, or a troll.

To be a member in good standing, this board requires that you be a liberal, feminist consumer of coffee and alcohol and anything else the church prohibited.

And expressing hatred and anger also gets you more points.

Also good to search the internet desperately for anything a Mormon did wrong, or find something wrong with Utah or whatever can potentially be linked to Mormonism.

All in the name of "recovery".

I might have to agree with this to some extent. My views really don't fall in line with the board i have learned since started and that is perfectly fine and i still press on because i have to keep getting better regardless of what anyone says or does. I do think a lot like sir david the bard on a lot of things and that brings me comfort. Feels good to not feel totally alone in my views of the world and not feel totally crazy. I get evaluated multiple times a week just to make sure i am not crazy, the badass is not crazy but has just been through a lot sh#t.

Poster "anybody" admitted "its not about cake" in their post. Ok. So what is it about?

You have a woman who doesnt want to create art that is contrary to her religion and you have a gay couple who wants to force her to make that art that is contrary to her religion.

In a sane society both parties would realize they will not agree and part ways peacefully. Instead in our society the gay couple sues because someone dared to disagree with them. So if it isnt about cake then why did they sue? It comes down simply to the fact that they are control freaks looking for trouble (in this case a lawsuit).

The fact of the matter is that she has her first amendment right to refuse to engage in actions contrary to her religion. That is freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The first amendment is first and most important. Did she deprive anyone else of anything by not doing anything? No. You cant claim her in action is an action against gays. That simply doesnt make sense. She owns the shop. She decides if the cake is appropriate for herself, her business, and her brand. There you go.

In the United States, once a person makes the decision to open a business of any kind, they implicitly agree to observe the laws and regulations of that locality which apply to that business.

Since the end of Jim Crow laws in 1965, business owners, business managers, and business employees are required to serve any members of the public who desire the products or services of those businesses (absent any obvious exceptions: people who are raging drunk...are carrying weapons and are acting threatening...children in places where children are not allowed, etc.).

If a business owner offers a particular service (including frosting decorations which say: "Best Wishes Cathy and Bruce!"), then that owner must offer that same service to anyone who walks in the door and requests it. (Obviously, there would be legal exceptions, such as a potential customer wanting "decorations" which were a threat to someone else's life, etc.)

I am not disregarding the fact that if I, personally, owned a bakery and a white supremacist or neo-Nazi wanted me to decorate a cake with "Yay for Hitler!" or "White Power!" or whatever, it would be extremely distasteful to me...yet this would be my legal obligation to do...a legal obligation which would apply to me the moment I "opened my [business] door."

No one is compelled to own a business which is open to the public. If someone makes the choice to own such a business, they are required to obey the relevant laws which apply to that kind of business.

Why didn't they just go to another cake shop or something? I don't know much about this situation but that thought just came up for me.

Badassadam1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why didn't they just go to another cake shop or
> something? I don't know much about this situation
> but that thought just came up for me.

Business owner:
"Sorry, you can't eat at my lunch counter, because you're black and I don't serve blacks. There's a place down the street that serves blacks, though -- you can go there!"

That's why.

Now i am getting the picture.

It is more like. A man walks into a diner and looks at the menu. He doesnt like the menu so he asks for a custom sandwich. The worker explains that they dont make that kind of sandwich and he should go to McDonalds for that kind of sandwich. Then the customer sued the diner for discrimination.

Ah! So if an item is not on the menu, the customer still gets to ask for it and you believe that this customer would be successful in suing for discrimination when he was told, "Spaghetti is not something my sushi chefs are familiar with, but maybe Olive Garden would have it?"

Logic is sooooo flexible, but I don't think the man in the diner in your example has a prayer of recovering any damages, and would likely end up paying costs.

Bigots keep twisting and turning! Just say it, tell us who you want us to hate...

Dammit!

Twice in about three days I've been preempted by people with faster metaphorical pens. First Hie and now you.

Dammit!

Your scenario omits one salient piece of information. What is it, you ask?

"I'm sorry, we won't make that sandwich for you because it is a gay sandwich for gay people. Go to McDonalds for that kind of sandwich."

Many would consider your version of the exchange whitewashing.

So...

NOTHING is happening?

M@t