Post: #1

The whistleblowers who broke the Jimmy Savile story have seen their careers nosedive while executives protect their own status

Idaho city’s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail

This is the "left". These are things "SJW's" support. Child abusers and prison time for Christians who follow the bible. Roosh, Vox, GamerGate, these are powerful voices for the side of truth and traditional families, but you must realize, the period of debate is coming to an end.

A simple litmus test on whether you are on the left: When "racism" is a far more serious insult than "child abuser" to you, you might be an "SJW".

When liberal organizations as small as the "Science Fiction Writers of America" still harbors child molestors and their biggest organizations such as the BBC fires their reporters who simply report on an abuser who has abused dozens of boys and girls (the story already broke) and Christians who refuse to violate their religions tenets are being fined and threatened unless they literally celebrate homosexuality, they already tolerate it, there is only one thing to do. Prepare for war.

Stand. Your. Ground.

Post: #2

(04-27-2015 12:31 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  The whistleblowers who broke the Jimmy Savile story have seen their careers nosedive while executives protect their own status

You are using The Guardian as a source on the excesses of the left when they are the most left-wing of all the UK papers.

I've gone on about the flimsiness of the Savile allegations before, but:
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2...there.html

Quote:After some diligent research and locality exploration, it was shown that the allegations of Val and Angie about Jimmy Savile controlling some kind of harem of Popshow Dollies at the BBC Television Centre in 1968/69 was a fiction anyway, because Top of the Pops in 1968 and 1969 was being made at the long demolished and half-forgotten Lime Grove Studios, and not the iconic TV Centre building.

This negated much of the first twenty minutes of the so-called expose of Jimmy Savile by Mark Williams-Thomas because Williams-Thomas was presenting testimony that simply could not be true. Just recently I managed to find additional evidence that his Exposure programme was not accurate about it's stories about Jimmy savile in 1969.

http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2...en-in.html

Quote:According to the ex-policeman Mark Williams-Thomas of itv's Exposure Jimmy Savile is in his fifth or sixth year of running a harem of PopShow Dollies at the BBC. According to both these ex-policemen Jimmy Savile was able to do this because he was somehow protected by a cloak of celebrity invulnerability. Did either of these ex-policemen seek any evidence for these claims? Clearly they didn't, because the evidence that exists demonstrates they are both talking utter balderdash.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #3

In general, Christianity is becoming a hate crime while fucking little boys is a lifestyle choice.

Post: #4

Not to mention the allgetions of 'Lord' Janner's pederastry which were fairly common knowledge since the 1990s.

Post: #5

Not as sure about the article on the BBC after reading the other comments, but I do like the sentiment of stand your ground. One of the articles had compared SJW to the Borg and I think it is relevant here:

WE ARE SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS. LOWER YOUR
ABILITY TO REASON AND SURRENDER YOUR MIND.
WE WILL ADD YOUR MANUFACTURED OUTRAGE AND BITTERNESS TO OUR OWN. YOU WILL BE SOCIALLY ENGINEERED TO SERVICE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

Post: #6

The left are corrupt as hell and only seem to exist to perpetuate their fascist ideology and lies day in and day out through the media, government and increasingly through the schools and corporations.

It's even worse here in the UK than in American I think. There is no real opposition media except maybe The Spectator and Daily Mail (haha) but relatively few people read those. The Financial Times is pretty corporatist and PC on most of the major hot button issues like immigration, "women's rights", gay marriage etc. The state-controlled media is ominipresent and all the other media seems to toe the gov't's politically correct party line. People are much more beholden to big government here as they control almost every service they have ever used for the most part with a few exceptions.

Last night I turned on the BBC (which is so far left of center and progressive it's not even funny, and all Britons have to pay for it!) and the big story was the European "Pay Gap" they claimed was 22% and what were we all going to do about it. No in-depth analysis just a shaming from the all-women cast of characters. Lies, lies and more lies. What a joke!

Biggest problem is that the "right" aren't all that much better. In many ways they are a controlled opposition now and even mostly support things like gay marriage and the Matriarchy in many forms (even if they don't know it). They adopt most of the mainstream political positions for the most part eventually and seem to have lost much of their principles.

Red-pill is truly that still in many ways outside our "game" sphere.

Post: #7

You're talking absolute shite there. The BBC is 'leftist'? Leftist is anarchism, not wishy-washy centrist corporatism.

The Telegraph, the Mail, The Sun, Sky News ... all companies with strong Murdoch influences, known to have a very right-wing viewpoint. They all set the news agenda in this country, pumping out bullshit 24/7 about 'Red Ed', 'the SNP will tear us apart' and all the other scare stories and nonsense. Like the one about the Tories sorting out the economy when their stupid braindead cut-backs delayed any recovery for longer than anywhere else (until they quietly dropped their previous stand-point when it was obvious it wasn't working).

Corporatism is the fucking problem, that's why this country is a shithole, because any higher moral purpose and ambition to be a better society are crushed under the weight of 'profits at any cost'. And no one in the media, especially at the 'dangerously leftish' BBC would dare to question that viewpoint. Watch their coverage of the Royal Family, it's uniformly sickening and toadying, telling us how grateful we should be to have these freeloading parasites taking a cut of our money, when we can barely run any services these days thanks to the never ending austerity drive. Is that 'leftist'? Course it isn't.

Our politics are driven entirely by money, because most of the parties rely on their wealthy donors to provide their campaign funds, in exchange for the promise they won't do anything radical economically. There's barely any left-wing to speak of, Labour aren't, and the SNP will never have any power anyway (as the Lib Dems didn't as the second wheel in a coalition).

I couldn't give a fuck about which party is better, as they're all varying degrees of useless but don't talk nonsense. The BBC are vaguely liberal, but only on issues that have no baring on real power, in political terms they do whatever the government of the time requires them to. As if they don't then MI5 (known old-skool right-wingers to a man) are quite willing to get them to pull a story that's deemed damaging.

Post: #8

(04-28-2015 07:40 AM)Echoes Wrote:  You're talking absolute shite there. The BBC is 'leftist'? Leftist is anarchism, not wishy-washy centrist corporatism.

The Telegraph, the Mail, The Sun, Sky News ... all companies with strong Murdoch influences, known to have a very right-wing viewpoint. They all set the news agenda in this country, pumping out bullshit 24/7 about 'Red Ed', 'the SNP will tear us apart' and all the other scare stories and nonsense. Like the one about the Tories sorting out the economy when their stupid braindead cut-backs delayed any recovery for longer than anywhere else (until they quietly dropped their previous stand-point when it was obvious it wasn't working).

Corporatism is the fucking problem, that's why this country is a shithole, because any higher moral purpose and ambition to be a better society are crushed under the weight of 'profits at any cost'. And no one in the media, especially at the 'dangerously leftish' BBC would dare to question that viewpoint. Watch their coverage of the Royal Family, it's uniformly sickening and toadying, telling us how grateful we should be to have these freeloading parasites taking a cut of our money, when we can barely run any services these days thanks to the never ending austerity drive. Is that 'leftist'? Course it isn't.

Our politics are driven entirely by money, because most of the parties rely on their wealthy donors to provide their campaign funds, in exchange for the promise they won't do anything radical economically. There's barely any left-wing to speak of, Labour aren't, and the SNP will never have any power anyway (as the Lib Dems didn't as the second wheel in a coalition).

I couldn't give a fuck about which party is better, as they're all varying degrees of useless but don't talk nonsense. The BBC are vaguely liberal, but only on issues that have no baring on real power, in political terms they do whatever the government of the time requires them to. As if they don't then MI5 (known old-skool right-wingers to a man) are quite willing to get them to pull a story that's deemed damaging.

I'm not talking "absolute shite" here mate but thanks for that.

I can't imagine a more historically lefitist outfit than the BBC. They follow the lefty progressive multicultural line almost to a T, whether it's multiculturalism, being hard on Christianity / soft on Islam, immigration, Labour-leaning, Feminist , pro NHS & nationalized healthcare - you name it. Yeah they are corporatist too but then again so are the others.

I think you are probably like many UK people in that you literally can't see just how crazy left and politically correct you've become in some way, almost so much that you can't even question certain (most) things without being deemed "sexist", "racist", "homophobic" etc. That's why the mainstream media goes out of there way to paint the UKIP as some sort of fanatical racist political party.

Believe me, being from the States I have seen the way the media lies, spins and generally pulls for the progressive left my entire life, and it's a carbon copy of it here if but a decade or so behind the US. It's only going to get worse. UK is the perfect storm of the "frog doesn't know it's boiling" now.

I can't see any party making much of a difference anyway (other than Miliband and Labour being an absolute nightmare & the worst of a poor set of choices) given how corrupt the system is and how the big money controls almost every political decision these days. We're on borrowed time in the west, but don't for one second try to tell me or anyone else that the BBC isn't left-wing feel good progressive propaganda machine. I mean get real.

Your argument re the Murdoch press is kind of like the US argument/fearmongering against Fox news and acts as if it's all in a vacuum and the other media are somehow "unbiased". Well, the entire reason Murdoch and Fox etc. got somewhat popular is because the mainstream media was historically a sea of leftist propaganda that tended to obfuscate and lie so much (or just not report things or spin it so far from the truth) that people did something about it and created a more right-wing network. In the US it basically still is mostly lefty/progressive - you've got all the major newtorks (CBS, NBC & ABC) + CNN + all the newspapers (NY Times, Wash Post, LA Times etc.) that lean democrat / progressive + Hollywood. Then you've got Fox, The WS Journal and NY Post as the conservative other side, but also very corporatist and progressive on many of the social issues at this point. As the cultures erode, morals fall away and we become less religious (in the US) the situation will continue to deteriorate.

So like I said, the "right" opposition is controlled now like it is in the UK and Europe. Tough to find mainstream "conservative" news sources that are against gay marriage, preferential feminist "rights" in the job force, the current misandrist marriage laws or even the ridiculous mass immigration for the most part now (Fox is railing on about it, but all the big companies that pay their bills love cheap labor and new customers and the left loves the potential new votes).

On the economic side, the UK economy isn't shit bc of the "cutbacks" - it's a mess bc of your deficit and previous overspending + all the promises that the politicians will never be able to deliver on. Don't have time to go into why it's not really an "austerity versus spending" debate as that's a bigger topic but suffice it to say that Britain's gotten by on the taxes and wealth brought in by the City workers and the real estate market, plus the dirty money brought in by the rich Arabs, Russians and Africans plus the fact that it's the best of a bad lot of European countries tax and economic-growth-wise, but that can't last forever or much longer.

Post: #9

On the pastors going to jail bit. I don't know if these two are, but others are certainly ready to be jailed in opposition. You can't get more apostle like than being jailed for adhering to your faith. Pastors and reverends were jailed in the south during the civil war when they spoke for the wrong side and it caused a revival of sorts, I would expect the same with pastors jailed for gay marriage refusal.

Post: #10

450 people alleged abuse by Savile. Yea, Beniot, I'm not buying they all made it up. From Wikipedia.

Quote:In September and October 2012, almost a year after his death, claims were widely publicised that the radio and television presenter Jimmy Savile had committed sexual abuse, his alleged victims ranging from prepubescent girls and boys to adults. By 11 October 2012 allegations had been made to 13 British police forces,[1] and this led to the setting-up of inquiries into practices at the BBC and within the National Health Service.

On 19 October 2012 the Metropolitan Police Service launched a formal criminal investigation, Operation Yewtree, into historic allegations of child sexual abuse by Savile and other people, some still living, over four decades. It stated that it was pursuing over 400 separate lines of inquiry, based on the claims of 200 witnesses, via 14 police forces across the UK. It described the alleged abuse as being "on an unprecedented scale", and the number of potential victims as "staggering".[2][3] By 19 December, eight people had been questioned as part of the investigation. The Metropolitan Police stated that the total number of alleged victims was 589, of whom 450 alleged abuse by Savile.[4][5]

The report of the investigations undertaken jointly by the police and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), Giving Victims a Voice, was published on 11 January 2013. It reported allegations covering a period of fifty years, including 214 alleged acts by Savile which, though uncorroborated, have been formally recorded as crimes, some involving children as young as eight. The report states "within the recorded crimes there are 126 indecent acts and 34 rape/penetration offences."[6] Alleged offences took place at 13 hospitals as well as on BBC premises, according to the report.[7][8] In October 2013 it was announced that inquiries had been extended to other hospitals.[9] On 26 June 2014, the Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt, reported on the findings of the investigations led by Kate Lampard. He said that Savile had sexually assaulted victims aged between five and 75 in NHS hospitals, and apologised to the victims.[10] Further investigations, in hospitals and elsewhere, led to additional allegations of sexual abuse by Savile.

Much of Savile's career involved working with children and young people, including visiting schools and hospital wards. He spent 20 years presenting Top of the Pops before a teenage audience, and an overlapping 20 years presenting Jim'll Fix It, in which he helped the wishes of viewers, mainly children, come true. During his lifetime, two police investigations had looked into reports about Savile, the earliest known being in 1958, but none had led to charges; the reports had each concluded that there was insufficient evidence for any charges to be brought related to sexual offences.[11][12][13] In October 2012 it was announced that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, would investigate why proceedings against Savile in 2009 were dropped.

The scandal was a major factor leading to the establishment of the wider-ranging Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse which was announced by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, in July 2014. In February 2015 the inquiry was reconfigured as a statutory inquiry to be chaired by Justice Lowell Goddard.

Post: #11

If what you take away from Christians being persecuted is that you must defend the honor of a dead child abuser, my message wasn't for you Benoit.

Post: #12

(04-28-2015 11:44 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  If what you take away from Christians being persecuted is that you must defend the honor of a dead child abuser, my message wasn't for you Benoit.

If you believe that a (very) strange old man who did lots of charity work was a child abuser because Wikipedia says so - then my message wasn't for you either.

Key words in your quote: "claims" "alleged" "uncorroborated".

Thanks to the 'investigation' where anything said by a "victim" is accepted as fact, millions of pounds that would have gone to charity and directly helped people is now going to only to lawyers.


I don't want to see a justice system based on feelings, where everyone's a victim who must be believed.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #13

Savile creamed off some cash for every public appearance and good deed he did, most of which were to assuage his own guilt and to provide him with some protection whenever allegations came up.

There were several investigations into him when he was alive, all of which were either not carried through by victims (because Savile was a celeb and had expensive lawyers) or were shut down by the crooked police of Yorkshire, who Savile met every Friday. (They're a crooked force in many other cases too)

Wake up, Jimmy Savile was always a creepy weirdo who everyone instinctively loathed, he had zero discernible talent yet made it the top by a combination of brinksmanship, psychopathy and his crooked contacts (some of whom were fellow peadophiles who knew Savile had the dirt on them). Read Dan Davies' excellent book on the life of Savile, and the many, many accusations that were made over decades and the many former colleagues who continually state how Savile 'liked 'em young' even when they knew him. The author had many, many interviews with Savile over years of research and attempted to track down many of his former acquaintances. Alternatively, read the North Yorkshire Enquirer articles about Savile's connection with Conservative Mayor and fellow child abuser Peter Jaconelli, or read one of the many government reports put together in the aftermath of the Savile scandal. The government spent millions and millions of pounds of tax-payers money just on the off-chance that there was something in these allegations? Or read his autobiography which has countless tales of 'young ladies' and sordid shenanigans.

There's tons of evidence, you just ignore it, for reasons I can't even imagine. 'Good old Sir Jimmy' was a creepy, fucked up weirdo with a Norman Bates'-style mother fixation and a liking for doing 'charity work' that gave him easy access to the vulnerable and the underaged, who he abused continually and consistently.

Post: #14

(04-28-2015 12:49 PM)Echoes Wrote:  There's tons of evidence, you just ignore it, for reasons I can't even imagine. 'Good old Sir Jimmy' was a creepy, fucked up weirdo with a Norman Bates'-style mother fixation and a liking for doing 'charity work' that gave him easy access to the vulnerable and the underaged, who he abused continually and consistently.

How was this "creepy weirdo who everyone instinctively loathed" able to protect himself so perfectly while many more famous paedophiles were successfully prosecuted?

e.g:
1999 - Gary Glitter - 12 years before Savile died
2001 - Jonathan King - went down 10 years before Savile died.


Show me the evidence and I'll consider it.

I'll give you a tip though, don't expect to find any evidence in the investigative reports that millions of pounds of taxpayers money were spent on.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #15

Hahaha.

Maybe because one of those people had links to government and royalty, whilst the other two were light entertainment non-entities? I don't expect the truth in inquiries, they're there to shut people up and stop them from raising anymore questions.

The fact that they even had an inquiry says something, they don't bother if it's all bullshit. Something damaging though, that needs shutting down. See the never-ending Chilcott inquiry.

Post: #16

(04-28-2015 01:26 PM)Echoes Wrote:  Maybe because one of those people had links to government and royalty, whilst the other two were light entertainment non-entities? I don't expect the truth in inquiries, they're there to shut people up and stop them from raising anymore questions.

Jimmy Savile was a radio DJ who did a bit of TV.

Where did he get the power needed to have the royal family and multiple governments protect him? Did they send in requests for songs so embarrassing that exposure would have ruined them?

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #17

Urgh.

He was knighted on the express recommendation of Mrs. Thatcher, having had a long and public association with her, he was also regarded (bizarrely) as a 'confidant' of Prince Charles, and friend of Prince Phillip. If you can't see how the fact that he was a nonce, who'd been travelling up and down the country diddling the kids he was meant to be assisting would be embarrassing for both those institutions then I rather give up.

Here's a link to 15 Department of Education reports about Jimmy Savile & 16 NHS ones, maybe you could find some evidence that meets your satisfaction within one of them:

https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2015...my-savile/

...although given your standpoint I doubt anything short of video footage of Sir Jimmy fucking a minor whilst introducing The Osmonds on TOTP would suffice.

Post: #18

Yea, i never gave child abuse much thought until "Vox Day" exposed the left wing faction of the "SFWA" for protecting convicted child molesters and praising their deranged fiction.

Leftist ideology and really fucked up sexual practices go hand in hand. I'm not talking about light bdsm stuff, which basically all women are into or can get into, (they like the pleasing their "king" aspect of it") but trans-children and abusing children stuff.

I used to just think I disagreed with the left. Now I realize they want to rape my children and kill me. It's a tough pill to swallow, but it's true. There is no compromise.

Post: #19

There's no politics to child abuse - it's a crime.

You seem to have read a few news stories and then applied your own prejudices to it to make a crazy concoction. For the record, Jimmy Savile was a right-winger, who supported Thatcher and the Conservatives, not that it matters as I'm sure child abuse crosses the spectrum of all political viewpoints. If someone who voted Rebublican kills someone does that mean 'the right' want to murder the entire population?

Post: #20

(04-28-2015 05:13 PM)Echoes Wrote:  Urgh.

He was knighted on the express recommendation of Mrs. Thatcher, having had a long and public association with her, he was also regarded (bizarrely) as a 'confidant' of Prince Charles, and friend of Prince Phillip. If you can't see how the fact that he was a nonce, who'd been travelling up and down the country diddling the kids he was meant to be assisting would be embarrassing for both those institutions then I rather give up.

Here's a link to 15 Department of Education reports about Jimmy Savile & 16 NHS ones, maybe you could find some evidence that meets your satisfaction within one of them:

https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2015...my-savile/

...although given your standpoint I doubt anything short of video footage of Sir Jimmy fucking a minor whilst introducing The Osmonds on TOTP would suffice.

I can see that you really want him to have abused children for some reason, but although I will freely admit I wouldn't put it past the old perv, you are operating on what you want to believe, not what the evidence supports. He wasn't even knighted until 1990, that's 26 years after the first alleged offence was "covered up"

Let's pick out the Leeds City Council report since that's his hometown and where he spent a lot of time.

There are 4 allegations in the report:

Quote:1. An anonymous woman said she saw Savile at a Christmas party where a blond girl sat on his leg - "Did not witness anything"

2. An anonymous woman - said senior managers at Childrens Services were aware of Savile’s exploits with under aged children of both sexes and the abuse was "brushed under the carpet" - "There has been no evidence to support the anonymous allegation"

3. Deputy Head Teacher school for boys with behavioural problems. Said Savile lived close to the school and boys were taken to his flat as a reward for good behaviour. He had no information to suspect that anything untoward had occurred. - "The investigation found that the school was about 11 miles from Savile’s flat and that boys were not taken to the flat as reward for good behaviour

4.Another anonymous female caller said Savile would pick up school girls in his Rolls Royce. He is said to have had strong alliances with the School in the 1970s and was ‘untouchable’. -"[the school] confirmed that they no ongoing association with Savile and have received no allegations or concerns about him from pupils or staff."

Pick a side - either the "establishment" covered up horrific sex crimes and every report is a whitewash because they're still protecting themselves, or find actual evidence of actual crimes in any one of the reports you selected and show it to me. You can't have both be true.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #21

(04-29-2015 04:03 AM)Echoes Wrote:  There's no politics to child abuse - it's a crime.

You seem to have read a few news stories and then applied your own prejudices to it to make a crazy concoction. For the record, Jimmy Savile was a right-winger, who supported Thatcher and the Conservatives, not that it matters as I'm sure child abuse crosses the spectrum of all political viewpoints. If someone who voted Rebublican kills someone does that mean 'the right' want to murder the entire population?

Actually I agree with KorbenDallas on this one, there are a surprising number of lefties who were pro-kiddy fiddling in the 70s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile...oliticians

The left wants to destroy the family unit and impose the government as surrogate parent. What better way to do that than by turning children into sex objects for perverts and making it impossible for them to have normal relationships?

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #22

Keep church and state separate and you won't have this problem.
The couple in question run a private business that makes money from performing weddings.
They are thus subject to anti discrimination laws.
If they were just performing weddings/religious ceremonies inside their church, in their sole capacity as pastor or high priest or Dahli Poomba or Operating Thetan VIII or whatever they want to call themselves, they are free to serve only people who believe in their preferred fairy tale.

You seem to like "tradition." Well, in the Middle Ages, where everyone in Western Europe was essentially forced to be Christian and heresy was punishable by burning at the stake (wouldn't you like that), marriage was fundamentally a legal contract between two parties concerning the disposition of property. It was usually the subject of extensive negotiations. Only after the marriage contract was legally concluded, did a separate religious ceremony take place in which the church blessed the marriage.

So, let's be traditional. Marriage = legal contract. You can celebrate afterwards with whatever religious ceremony you choose that caters to your chosen self delusion and invokes the power of imaginary Gods, or a God, river spirits, Allah, etc etc.

Legal contracts can't be restricted on the basis of sex, religion, orientation, etc. Doesn't square with the equal protection clause.

Post: #23

You're a moron. I can't be bothered.

I don't know how many allegations are in all those reports, they list all known accusations, many of which may be not be corroborated, at the same time there's plenty that are.

If you'd bothered to read through all of them you could find plenty of incidences in which there were witnesses and the accusations were classed as credible. But instead you cherry pick, to support you're flimsy arguments. I can't be bothered to do your reading for you, frankly you seem like a cretin.

Post: #24

Not a christian and not a troll.

I agree with your point that gays should be given the right to the same legal contract a woman and a man can enter into.

You can go to a courthouse to get that done.

Why should a Pastor be made to do the ceremony? Even if he runs it as a business?

What do you care? Why do gays have to be able to force people who don't want to do their ceremony when there are plenty of other Christians and other pastors who will? It's only some pastors who don't want to do it.

I like your solution by the way. Let's call a spade a spade. Marriage already is a legal contract in the US. In my opinion, the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, but your solution would be fine.

Family courts need to be reformed though.

Also, along your line of reasoning, a Jewish rabbi should be forced to perform the marriage of neo-nazi's whose vows include that all Jews should die.

Post: #25

You seem to like the idea of forcing Christians to do things that go against their faith. I don't see Muslim bakeries being punished even though they have come out against serving gays wedding cakes.