![If you live behind enemy lines, order your local bakeries to make you a gun cake. If they refuse, you know what to do. Use their playbook against them. [1024x1024 - 106KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/X2M0Ws.jpg){kind=link}
Dont eat the little silver balls that are used as decorations.
If you do and you fart. Your likely to shoot the cat!
Dont eat the little silver balls that are used as decorations.
If you do and you fart. Your likely to shoot the cat!
Idk why someone made it with a threaded barrel, but it's comedy gold
Idk why someone made it with a threaded barrel, but it's comedy gold
If they do make your cake, don’t eat it.. those faggots will probably put aids in it for you.
If they do make your cake, don’t eat it.. those faggots will probably put aids in it for you.
Holy Mother of God, there's a lot of those! Pick your fave!
Holy Mother of God, there's a lot of those! Pick your fave!
https://pic8.co/sh/hTKrEK.jpg
Is it cake? Stay tuned for the next episode where the ATF finds out!
Is it cake? Stay tuned for the next episode where the ATF finds out!
It won't work. Gun ownership doesn't make you part of a protected class. In other words, you'll have no legal standing to sue. If you want standing, their refusal must be based upon your membership in a legally protected class.
That's why the central argument in these cases is always, "I'm not refusing to conduct business with these fags, I'm refusing to allow them to compel me to say things I don't want to say." If they were to try and argue they have the right to refuse service to fags they would lose instantly. Once the case is about compelled speech it's a whole different ballgame. The government cannot compel speech. There's no way around it.
If the Supreme Court were to rule any other way the floodgates are open. Imagine if the government could require painters to include at least one transgendered person per every 5 persons depicted in any painting, or for book authors to include at least one gay character portrayed positively in each book. As bad as that is, then imagine that the government can require that government be portrayed positively in all artistic works. Compelled speech is a big deal.
It won't work. Gun ownership doesn't make you part of a protected class. In other words, you'll have no legal standing to sue. If you want standing, their refusal must be based upon your membership in a legally protected class.
That's why the central argument in these cases is always, "I'm not refusing to conduct business with these fags, I'm refusing to allow them to compel me to say things I don't want to say." If they were to try and argue they have the right to refuse service to fags they would lose instantly. Once the case is about compelled speech it's a whole different ballgame. The government cannot compel speech. There's no way around it.
If the Supreme Court were to rule any other way the floodgates are open. Imagine if the government could require painters to include at least one transgendered person per every 5 persons depicted in any painting, or for book authors to include at least one gay character portrayed positively in each book. As bad as that is, then imagine that the government can require that government be portrayed positively in all artistic works. Compelled speech is a big deal.
Implying any court in America would actually treat an actual constitutional right with the same reverence as they do faggotry.
Implying any court in America would actually treat an actual constitutional right with the same reverence as they do faggotry.
Comedy gold indeed. Maybe also have them include a figurine of that nigger with a knee on its neck.
Comedy gold indeed. Maybe also have them include a figurine of that nigger with a knee on its neck.
Pro life ones would trigger harder.
Pro life ones would trigger harder.
School kids get suspended for making a Pop-tart into the shape of a gun.
School kids get suspended for making a Pop-tart into the shape of a gun.
(post is archived)