#bisexual-sweetcake

[bigbarabelly]

Young homie goin THROUGH IT from I Was Born For You To Adore

[inna-pooh]

@bisexual-sweetcake, the way my soul sing at this tags… you have no idea 🤍

Especially the invisible dick part :D

I know Homie is not that ripped, but I wanted to intimidate Hughie. So, Happy Scandalized Hughie Day!

[shopofsomewhatwonders]

... I guess it's time for me to update this again.

Hi. I'm Star. You all know me as the one who created cursed things here. Yeah that's about it for now...

NEW ANNOUNCEMENT I AM NOW A TEACHER FOR TEACHING THE TOH FANDOM HOW TO COPE THAT THEIR SHOW IS OVER- /J

RP INFO OR SMTH IDK-

Name: Lunalla “Dieir”

Nicknames: Lunar, Lunnie, Kirby 2.0, Lunes, Ms. I ruin everything gremlin, Marry Poppins, Spooky Scary Skeleton, The most dangerous person in Emenairy, Europe's last straw, "What did you do this time." The Executioner, "OH GOD NOT HER-"

Pronouns: She/Her 

Sexuality: Bisexual

Height: 5′4

Age: “No.”

Skills: Okay, so she's a mechanic because she basically made a robot and bombs, she can bite through metal or smth stronger than that-

Hobbies: Playing games, making art, committing acts of arson, running away, nukes

Occupation: self-proclaimed shop owner

UPDATED Full Appearance:

(NEW CHARACTER)

You see a man walking away from the shop, clearly ignoring the destruction of it. He notices you and waves at you.

"Hey, the names Adam, and you guys are not going to leave me alone so, you can ask me things. Just don't get too personal okay?"

ASSASSIN GUY-

Name: Adam Waiior

Pronouns: he/him

Sexuality: Bisexual

Nicknames: Werid knife man, Deer, Ruby, Ad-man, a suit if it were a person-, "IS THAT A THERAPIST WITH A KNIFE?!-"Oh damn that's ho-*gets stabbed-*,dearest Hitman-, taxi guy, darling,

Height: 6'2

Skills: hand-to-hand combat skills, gun specialist, built different

Occupation: Hitman/assassin,

Hobbies: Listening to music, money, finding a suit for every occasion,

Age: [Lol no]

Full appearance:

(He's important to the plot I swear-)

(No NSFW or discrimination please. Thank you.)

(ALRIGHT WE GOT A FEW NEW CHARACTERS NOW)

Name: "Chris Winston"

Pronouns: He/They

Nicknames: piece of calamari, Boss, tall octopus, hotstuff , sweetcakes, raw calamari, "IT'S THE FINAL BOSS-", Octo-man but he has cash, cala-taxes, "What the actual hell is that-", The seller, second most dangerous in Emenairy, dear

Height: 6'4 (when crouching- yes I know-)

Skills: height, can breathe underwater, very extendable limbs, seller voice,

Occupation: Shop owner (before things got fucked up-)

Hobbies: Going underwater, hanging with friends, selling stuff,

*girl that wants to talk to her friend (Tabitha)

*MAGIC MAN (Wizard)

*Okay that's an issue (Antares)

(And that's all-)

[sassheliosazuras]

OC Questionnaire

Thanks for the tag @aspyforthethrone!

Tagging @chivalin @lordviridis @rinskiroo

This one is for Sass but tag again and I’ll do other oc’s.

GENERAL

Name: Sass’Helios’Azuras

Alias(es): Battle master of the Jedi order, Emperor of Odessan, Commander of the Alliance, and Flyboy. <;  

Gender: Male

Age: As of ‘Traitor among the chiss’ he is 22 years old. Sass doesn't count the 5 years in Carbonate.

Place of birth: Illum, Jedi Temple.

Spoken languages: Basic, along with a bit of old Sith. He had to learn that when looking for old artifacts in sith tombs.

Sexual orientation: Bisexual and pan-romantic.

Occupation: Jedi Knight, Alliance Commander, and now Emperor.

APPEARANCE eye color: A vibrant all encompassing Ruby-red. Hair color: Dark blue with a few strands of deep purple. Height: 5′5 feet Scars: Well Arcann did give him a massive one right in the gut. Besides that theirs a few small ones on his hands from the first time he used Sith Lightening and couldn't control it. 

FAVORITE

Color: Gold and warm whites

Hair color: no real preference 

Eye color: Hazel or golden eyes

Entertainment: Huttball games, and visiting zoo’s and historical museums.

Pastime: Painting and training his martial skills.

Food: Sweetcakes and Bantha steaks.

Drink: Aged Tarul Wine

Books: Holocrons of old Jedi masters, along with copies of the history of the Republic. And maybe he has a secret collections of the comics  Wrathful Wrats. The series follows the Fearsome Four, a group of extraordinary wrats that face off against the many enemies. (P.S. I stole that idea from  @fluffynexu here is the link http://fluffynexu.tumblr.com/post/158044031372/wrats)

HAVE THEY

Passed university: I’m pretty sure becoming a Jedi knight counts....Or is that like passing high school?

Had sex: Yes.

Had sex in public: .......maybe.

Gotten pregnant: I know nothing how Chiss biology works but I’m pretty sure its like a humans so no not possible. Until Timothy Zahn  says otherwise.

Kissed a man: Yes.

Kissed a woman: Yes.

Gotten tattoos: Yup after Valky was defeated Kira took him out drinking and so they both got commemorative killed the emperor tattoos. It’s in a place few people will see. <3

Gotten piercings: No.

Had a broken heart: at least 3 times so far, dammit Theron!

Been in love: Yes.

Stayed up for more than 24 hours:Sass likes his sleep but planets always seem on the verge of exploding and he has to always fix it.

ARE THEY

A virgin: Hahahahahah.......’cough’  I mean no.

A cuddler: Yes, THERE IS NO ESCAPE!

A kisser: Yes.

A smoker: No.

Scared easily: No.

Jealous easily: Seeing his ex spy boyfriend with a new male force sensitive blueberry pissed him off royally. He beat that smirking blue son of a bitch the #$%@ up.

Trustworthy: Yes, he’s very loyal.

Dominant: with the right person

Submissive: with the right person

Single: Yup as of Copera and lets say he’s not taking the Theron blowing him up on a train breakup that well.

RANDOM QUESTIONS

Wanted to kill someone: Yes, seldom. But some people worked hard enough to join his hitlist.

Actually killed someone: Yes.

Ridden a beast: Does Lord Pravon count?I mean he has a pet Taun-Taun .

Have/had a job: Yes, formerly Battle Master of the Jedi order now Emperor of Oddessan.

Have any fears: Losing loved ones and becoming anyone’s puppet. Particularly the Emperors.

Sibling(s):Single child that he knows of.

Parents: Mother Jedi consular Selena’Helios’Azuras, father unknown.

Children: At this time as of the Copera timeline no, but two will be born soon within the next two years in that timeline.

Pets: “Ta-ta of course.” Sass exclaims giving the feeding tauntaun a hug around the neck and slipping him a salt cube. But Sass loves taking in baby animals but usually let them go once they reach adulthood. Has a few small droids also.

[viviskull]

👶🏻

Meme | Accepting | Vivi and Maddie

name: Anzu Sweetcake

birthdate: February 12th

personality headcanon: Combined from the both of her mothers, Anzu is as kind as sugar and maybe even sweeter than honey. Still, alike Maddie, she's another curious bookworm. She's smart, a knowledge finder, and most of all a loud baby who doesn't know when to shut up.

what was their first word and how old were they when they said it: Butterfly - She and Vivi were outside having a picnic out in the park one day when she was 5. Some butterflies were surrounding them as they ate, then Anzu suddenly said it between a mouthful of bread. It took about the entire afternoon to wait for Maddie to come home so she could hear the news of their baby's first word.

did they get in trouble in school: For the system they had at the time? Yes, but for the reasons you think though. As a child with autism, Anzu always liked to think outside the box when it came to problem solving. Some teachers did not like it though.

which parent were they more attached to: She was attached to them both equally. There wasn't a moment she WASN'T spending it with her moms!

what was their favorite toy: A stuffed cat named kitty. Anzu was not creative with names.

did they cry a lot as a baby: Surprisingly no!

movie they watched over and over: Toy Story

what was their favorite subject in school: Science!

were they social growing up or quiet: They are a loud mouth and you know it.

which parent do they take after: Takes after Vivi more in terms of personality.

what do they grow up to be: A job selected by their moms: a Librarian.

three random headcanons: 1- Being another Demigod baby, she has the ability to turn into a ghost with the skull, tux and everything! 2- She's bisexual. 3- She likes to nibble on things when she wants to stim.

likes & dislikes: likes- chewy items, soft foods, and soft plushies. dislikes- loud noises, peer pressure, and having their hair pulled.

do they get along with their parents: Gay pride's always gotta stick together, son.

faceclaim:

[benrleeusa]

[Eugene Volokh] Bakers Lose in Oregon Case, But Wedding Singers / Painters / Photographers Might Win

Today's Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries upholds a $135,000 damages award imposed on Melissa & Aaron Klein (owners of Sweetcakes by Melissa) for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony. The court acknowledged that people who create or perform First-Amendment-protected expression (such as singers, composers, painters, or sculptors, and I would add photographers to that list) might have a First Amendment not to create such expression that they find objectionable, even when they hire themselves to the public:i

[T]he services of a singer, composer, or painter ... [might] fit the definition of a "place of public accommodation" under ORS 659A.400. One can imagine, for example, a person whose business is writing commissioned music or poetry for weddings, or producing a sculpture or portrait of the couple kissing at an altar. One can also imagine such a person who advertises and is willing to sell those services to the general public, but who holds strong religious convictions against same-sex marriage and would feel her "freedom of mind" violated if she were compelled to produce her art for such an occasion. For the Kleins, this is that case. BOLI disagrees that a wedding cake is factually like those other examples, but the legal point that those examples illustrate is that existing public accommodations case law is awkwardly applied to a person whose "business" is artistic expression. The [Supreme] Court has not told us how to apply a requirement of nondiscrimination to an artist.

We believe, moreover, that it is plausible that the United States Supreme Court would hold the First Amendment to be implicated by applying a public accommodations law to require the creation of pure speech or art. If BOLI's order can be understood to compel the Kleins to create pure "expression" that they would not otherwise create, it is possible that the Court would regard BOLI's order as a regulation of content, thus subject to strict scrutiny, the test for regulating fully protected expression. See Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston (1995) (application of public accommodations statute violated the First Amendment where it "had the effect of declaring the sponsors' speech itself to be the public accommodation," thus infringing on parade organizers' "autonomy to choose the content of [their] own message"); see also Riley v. National Federation of the Blind (1988) (explaining that "[m]andating speech that a speaker would not otherwise make necessarily alters the content of the speech," and subjecting such regulation to "exacting First Amendment scrutiny")....

But the court concluded that even customized wedding cakes aren't inherently covered by the First Amendment speech compulsion doctrine:

[T]he question is whether that customary practice, and its end product, are in the nature of "art." As noted above, if the ultimate effect of BOLI's order is to compel the Kleins to create something akin to pure speech, then BOLI's order may be subject to strict scrutiny. If, on the other hand, the Kleins' cake-making retail business involves, at most, both expressive and non-expressive components, and if Oregon's interest in enforcing ORS 659A.403 is unrelated to the content of the expressive components of a wedding cake, then BOLI's order need only survive intermediate scrutiny to comport with the First Amendment. See United States v. O'Brien (1968) ("[W]hen 'speech' and 'nonspeech' elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms.").

[T]he Kleins' argument that their products entail artistic expression is entitled to be taken seriously. That being said, we are not persuaded that the Kleins' wedding cakes are entitled to the same level of constitutional protection as pure speech or traditional forms of artistic expression. In order to establish that their wedding cakes are fundamentally pieces of art, it is not enough that the Kleins believe them to be pieces of art. See Nevada Comm'n on Ethics v. Carrigan (2011) ("[T]he fact that a nonsymbolic act is the product of deeply held personal belief -- even if the actor would like to convey his deeply held personal belief -- does not transform action into First Amendment speech."). For First Amendment purposes, the expressive character of a thing must turn not only on how it is subjectively perceived by its maker, but also on how it will be perceived and experienced by others. Here, although we accept that the Kleins imbue each wedding cake with their own aesthetic choices, they have made no showing that other people will necessarily experience any wedding cake that the Kleins create predominantly as "expression" rather than as food.

Although the Kleins' wedding cakes involve aesthetic judgments and have decorative elements, the Kleins have not demonstrated that their cakes are inherently "art," like sculptures, paintings, musical compositions, and other works that are both intended to be and are experienced predominantly as expression. Rather, their cakes, even when custom-designed for a ceremonial occasion, are still cakes made to be eaten. Although the Kleins themselves may place more importance on the communicative aspect of one of their cakes, there is no information in this record that would permit an inference that the same is true in all cases for the Kleins' customers and the people who attend the weddings for which the cakes are created. Moreover, to the extent that the cakes are expressive, they do not reflect only the Kleins' expression. Rather, they are products of a collaborative process in which Melissa's artistic execution is subservient to a customer's wishes and preferences. For those reasons, we do not agree that the Kleins' cakes can be understood to fundamentally and inherently embody the Kleins' expression, for purposes of the First Amendment.

We also reject the Kleins' argument that, under the facts of this case, BOLI's order compels them to "host or accommodate another speaker's message" in a manner that the Supreme Court has deemed to be a violation of the First Amendment. In the only such case that involved the enforcement of a content-neutral public accommodations law, Hurley, the problem was that the speaker's autonomy was affected by the forced intermingling of messages, with consequences for how others would perceive the content of the expression. Hurley (reasoning that parades, unlike cable operators, are not "understood to be so neutrally presented or selectively viewed," and "the parade's overall message is distilled from the individual presentations along the way, and each unit's expression is perceived by spectators as part of the whole"). Here, because the Kleins refused to provide their wedding-cake service to Rachel and Laurel altogether, this is not a situation where the Kleins were asked to articulate, host, or accommodate a specific message that they found offensive. It would be a different case if BOLI's order had awarded damages against the Kleins for refusing to decorate a cake with a specific message requested by a customer ("God Bless This Marriage," for example) that they found offensive or contrary to their beliefs....

In short, we disagree that the Kleins' wedding cakes are invariably in the nature of fully protected speech or artistic expression, and we further disagree that BOLI's order forces the Kleins to host, accommodate, or associate with anyone else's particular message. Thus, because we conclude that BOLI's order does not have the effect of compelling fully protected expression, it does not trigger strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.

The court concluded that the order was therefore only subject to (at most) intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment -- a relatively government-friendly test -- and it passed such scrutiny because of the government interest in "prevent[ing] the dignitary harms that result from the unequal treatment of same-sex couples who choose to exercise their fundamental right to marry." But the court again noted that the analysis might be different for professionals who are asked to create First-Amendment-protected expression:

Again, it is significant that BOLI's order does not compel the Kleins to express an articulable message with which they disagree; rather, their objection is to being compelled to engage in any conduct that they regard as expressive.

And earlier, it noted that this may extend even to bakers, if they were baking something that would be understood as art by viewers:

To be clear, we do not foreclose the possibility that, on a different factual record, a baker (or chef) could make a showing that a particular cake (or other food) would be objectively experienced predominantly as art -- especially when created at the baker's or chef's own initiative and for her own purposes. But, as we have already explained, the Kleins never reached the point of discussing what a particular cake for Rachel and Laurel would look like; they refused to make any wedding cake for the couple. Therefore, in order to prevail, the Kleins ... must demonstrate that any cake that they make through their customary practice constitutes their own speech or art. They have not done so.

That would extend, I think, to the bakers' refusing to write particular text on the cake, as one of the earlier quotes notes ("because the Kleins refused to provide their wedding-cake service to Rachel and Laurel altogether, this is not a situation where the Kleins were asked to articulate, host, or accommodate a specific message that they found offensive").

I think this analysis is generally right, though I might quibble with a few details in the long opinion (available in full here). Whatever you think about such applications of antidiscrimination law (or about the particular damages award in this case) as a matter of policy, or of broader conceptions of liberty, the First Amendment bars compulsion of speech, not of all conduct. And while "speech" for First Amendment purposes has long included symbolic as well as verbal expression, it doesn't include all human behavior, even human behavior that can be seen as "artistic" -- for more on that, see Dale Carpenter's and my Masterpiece Cakeshop amicus brief.

The court also rejected the Kleins' religious exemption claim, holding that under Employment Division v. Smith (1990) the Free Exercise Clause doesn't require such exemptions from generally applicable laws. (The Oregon Constitution's religious freedom provision has been interpreted the same way, and Oregon doesn't have a Religious Freedom Restoration Act.) It did hold for the Kleins on a somewhat different free speech matter, which I'll discuss in a separate post.

[bigbarabelly]

I need everyone to read I Was Born For You To Adore because it’s ripping my heart in half watching homelander grow up alone