Men Flood Women's Job Fair After 'Lying' About Being Nonbinary
- Thread starter binsfeldcyhawk2
- Start date
That's a bunch of bullshit you are spewing to try to justify tacit racism. I won't respect anyone's belief that inter-racial marriage is immoral or a bad idea. That's a terrible belief that deserves to be ostracized.
Your support of those beliefs and other bigotry is despicable.
WTF are you talking about. This has nothing to do with selling a cake. It's about your support of bigoted beliefs.
No you are not. You wanted to be able to identify a non-binary person.
And the answer is simple - saying you are cis. SMFH at your backward idiocy.
There isn't any. You MUST believe the person at all costs. IMO, it seems as though there were a lot of non-binary people in the area that needed jobs.
But you can change your mind be cis at one time and later say you are non binary. Which is specifically why I asked for an action.
What could one do while claiming to be non binary that would be inconsistent with being non binary?
OP is such a timid cuuunt.
Did he learn it from his mom?
Did he learn it from his mom?
Yeah you are a **** and so was your mother. Your kids and ***** too.
I’m trying to rage on something over this story but I’m coming up empty handed. Can someone help me with my outrage? Just need some guidance.
Which shows you have no respect for those beliefs and wish to destroy them despite the fact that they have no desire to harm others.
I think your beliefs are bigoted. Maybe all of those "cis men" where in fact non binary. Who are you or these women to tell them what they identify as?
You need a small penis to be upset about this and other MAGA stuff.
I didn't say I supported those beliefs regarding inter racial marriage. I actually believe it would be a positive for society if we had more inter racial marriages.
My point is that if someone does hold those beliefs and does not actively seek to harm others they should be allowed those beliefs in peace. No one should make them make a wedding cake with a black bride and a white groom on it.
Like your ugly fact in the mirror. Poor genetics at work.
You're being ridiculous now. You're the one trying to determine how to prove whether someone is cis or non-binary. I don't give a shit. They are a person.
Your bigotry has warped you.
That is obviously true but what I would say would be any action in which if that person is allowed to freely choose would lead one to reasonably believe that they do not object to such things.
If I go to a wedding one might reasonably infer that I do not object to that wedding. When it comes to cakes my issue is any decoration that might indicate that one supports that wedding. On the other hand the providing of a blank cake shows sufficient indifference.
In my mind swap out gay marriage for despicable views and see if you agree. If a cake maker was asked to write on a cake something extremely racist, maybe containing the N word and they do it, one might reasonably infer that they don't object to that sort of thing.
This is different of course from selling a 2 liter of pop for a party down at the local neo nazi compound, which is indifferent as one rarely has any idea nor could they likely infer it's intended use.
Ultimately if people want respect on the trans issue so as for non trans people to not take advantage of extremely loose rules as to what makes someone trans, one should also be willing to not try and hound and economically destroy someone who might not want to make up a cake with 2 grooms on it.
You're conflating. Objections to a racist belief that someone holds and/or expresses is warranted and needed - unless, of course, you want those beliefs to be promoted.
The wedding cake case is not about objecting to someone's beliefs. It's about trying to force someone to create a unique work that defies their beliefs. I don't believe the bigoted baker should have been forced to make the cake. I do believe his views on the matter of gay marriage are rightfully highlighted as bigoted and wrong.
"take advantage of extremely loose rules as to what makes someone trans"
WTF? What "rules" are you citing here? This is absurd babble.
It's perfectly fine to highlight them as "bigoted and wrong". Problem is they were economically attacked via the law twice for not wanting to make a cake.
And for the record I am perfectly OK with putting their views in the newspaper along with calls for boycotts. But the problem of course is calls for boycotts rarely worked, so they had to try to use the law to destroy them . . . TWICE.
There are none which is why all these people showed up and the bigoted women were mad.
You're obsessed with one case that went to SCOTUS and has been ruled on. I'm not sure what you think people are "taking advantage of" here.
I already told you how it can be determined. JFC. They believed these people and they lied. Now you want to find some method of making sure someone who says they are non-binary is actually non-binary. That's the absurdity.
No you idiot. They are mad because they were lied to.
How do you know they lied? Furthermore how does one come up with a rule to prevent people from lying about being non-binary when you could not name a single action that is inconsistent with being a non-binary person.
JFC. How were they "economically attacked"? Did someone rob them?
Their position led to a legal battle over the issue - that's not an attack, that is a dispute. Their store lost business because of their stance on gay marriage. That's not an attack - that's a an outcome.
How do you know they were lied to? How do they know? There is nothing one can do which shows them to be non-binary.
Because enough of them said so. WTF?
There is no rule and will be no rule. There is no need for a rule. THAT. IS. THE. ****ING. POINT.
And I told you one, very simple action that is inconsistent. You are choosing to ignore it because it completely destroys this nonsensical narrative of yours.
When someone says "I'm non-binary" and then later reveals "I'm not really non-binary" it's easy for anyone with an ounce of intelligence to determine that there was a lie in there.
You've been off the deep end on these subjects for a long time. I've done what I can to point out your nonsense and complete lack of reason.
Lawyers cost money and they had to fight the state who famously has a lot more money for lawywrs then most small businesses.
And they had to do this twice.
None of the people interviewed were people who said they were lying, it was a bunch of women who decided they were lying.
Did any of them say that? And honestly does it matter? Gender is fluid. Means you can change your gender whenever and as often as you like.
These are not my rules.
In the article they were accused of lying.
How do you or the organizers know they lied?
Similar threads
