It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Baker Forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

page: 15
61
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Being offended is a growing cottage industry. Might as well get in on the ground floor before everyone's completely offended by everyone else and we end up with gridlock.

No offense.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: yeahright

*Gasp* I am offended that you would suggest being offended is offense.


We truly have moved to being more concerned about people's feelings, and from being free and having individual rights.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

Businesses relocate all the time for a variety of reasons. I imagine pot sales/the cannabis industry will offset any lost tax revenue. LOL

We're not worried. Where I live we get very little for our tax dollars. We've been an economically depressed area since the coal mines closed decades ago. Believe me we have very little to lose. Despite our poor lifestyle we aren't singing the blues or on the dole. We put up with hardships to live here because we like it. In fact people here don't want Walmart imagine that. I agree we're a bunch of odd balls but some of us like it that way.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I blame the Bill Clinton I Feel Your Pain tour. That guy could bite his lower lip out of concern like nobody's g/d bidness.

Personal freedom is dead. Now it's no longer about being able to do what you want, it's about forcing someone else to do what they don't want with a smile, and like it.

Bad is good, and good is bad, and I'm moving to a deserted shack in the deep woods.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: NavyDoc

Nah, I really don't. This particular issue is a simple one, it's a cake, it's easy to wonder what the big deal is... if it ended there, which it doesn't. It falls under the separate and not equal category. Because if a baker can refuse service to people so can a grocer and again you might ask what the big deal is, go to another grocery store but what if I've been denied service and there's no other grocery store around for 50 miles? My cost of living should be higher if I'm married to a woman?

What about a surgeon that is on ER duty and I've been shot and I arrive in critical condition accompanied by my same sex wife but the surgeon believes it's a sin against against God for me to be married to a woman and refuses to perform surgery? I die.

If you are working in the public or doing business in the public, you don't get to decide who the public is... there's not separate publics for people to choose from, the very F'ing foundation of liberty is commons... that in the commons everyone is free to go about their business unfettered by intolerant assholes.


Ah, the reducto in absurdum, blood in the streets justification.

We're not talking about taxpayer or municipal things like hospitals, we are talking about private individuals. Apples and kumquats again.

The F'ing foundation of liberty isn't "commons" or "communal" or "communism"--it's everybody doing their own thing and minding their own business and not trying to force your will upon others. Yes, everyone should be able to go about their business in peace unfettered by intolerant assholes which is why the state should not force people to do what they don't want to do. "Tolerance" goes both ways and when you use the coercive power of the state to punish the intolerance you don't like and support the intolerance you do like, you have neither freedom nor tolerance.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright
a reply to: macman

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Being offended is a growing cottage industry. Might as well get in on the ground floor before everyone's completely offended by everyone else and we end up with gridlock.

No offense.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.





posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Euphem
Like you said, you should never go out of your way to punish someone for their personal choices, especially if they aren't harming you in any way.


So... the baker should not go out of his way to punish the gay couple for their personal choices, especially since they weren't harming the baker in any way... Is that what you're saying?


Gay people should be happy at how far we have come with gay rights, and try not to push people to far.


Yeah... Pushing for SOME rights should satisfy them. They shouldn't push for all the way to equality.


But he didn't punish anyone. He just didn't want to do business with them. Not accommodating someone is not the same as punishing them unless you live in entitlement land.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: yeahright

LoL! I have not thought about the old bottom lip bite in awhile. I wonder how many times, and for how long, old Willy stood in front of the mirror practicing the fabricated act?

He's probably got a scar on it, I bet it's ready to fall off by now. Hillary better figure something out to do instead of screaming and foaming out the mouth like an absolute nutcase mad-Woman.

Yeah but everything does seem to be backwards these days. It's as if all commonsense has been tossed to the side and replaced with absolute madness. Don't forget about no accountability. Warped times we live in. ~$heopleNation



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Commons has not one thing to do with communism or communal anything. And to a degree we most certainly are talking about taxpayer and municipal things. Where does it make the most sense to set up a business? Off public roads in the woods somewhere or in highly trafficked areas with easy access from the road? Roads are paid for by whom?

I suggest you learn about Public Accommodation and The Commons.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Morningglory
a reply to: macman

Businesses relocate all the time for a variety of reasons. I imagine pot sales/the cannabis industry will offset any lost tax revenue. LOL

We're not worried. Where I live we get very little for our tax dollars. We've been an economically depressed area since the coal mines closed decades ago. Believe me we have very little to lose. Despite our poor lifestyle we aren't singing the blues or on the dole. We put up with hardships to live here because we like it. In fact people here don't want Walmart imagine that. I agree we're a bunch of odd balls but some of us like it that way.


Pot sales?? I say fantastic, as I am for personal freedoms. Seems that people are for some personal freedoms for a select people, but not for everyone else.

Maybe if the Bakery Sold Pot cakes, he would be able to deny service to someone, as Pot seems to be the buzz theme.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd be extremely reluctant to consume anything made for me by someone who might have a reason to uh... not be as careful as they otherwise might.

I've had enough bad experiences due to incompetence. Throw a little malice in there, and I think I'd rather just pick up some HoHos.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


You guys keep forgetting that we've been through all this before with the civil rights period. There was a time when a black person traveling through a town in the south couldn't find a place to eat or to rest his head for the night - no room at the inn, so to speak. Since those stupid narrow-minded bigoted southern good ole boys were a little stubborn about their negroes, they needed a little push with the help of some public accommodation laws. It all turned out okay, the world didn't end, our heads didn't explode, we didn't have a rash of death by poisonings -- and no one thinks twice about serving a black person now.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

"You should not be forced to provide a service that is against your religious beliefs. Period".......

Yes you should be forced to provide service to anyone who seeks it. Where would it stop otherwise. Muslim people not being served, Jewish, atheist, black, white, retarded, fat, short people....

This is where being able to choose your clientele based on religious beliefs "or personal preference", will lead.

A business is in business to serve people and there should not be any discrimination, on any grounds..!!



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Different times, different situations. I wouldn't begin to equate what African Americans went through in the dark Jim Crow times with the situation in this thread. The man didn't refuse to assist the couple, he just didn't want to specifically make them a wedding cake.

I have a difficult time envisioning there not being a bakery in Denver that would accommodate them. This smells a lot like a set-up and Official Offense Alert for publicity and lawsuit purposes, to me. People do that, you know. Maybe hoping for a reality show or something. But that's purely my opinion.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Ironclad2000

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

The baker did NOT refuse to serve them. he just didn't want to make them a wedding cake. Forced to provide to anyone? The intoxicated? The shirtless? The filthy? People who are so over the top they offend and run your existing customers out? Anyone?

No, lines are and will be drawn. You draw them. Everyone does. Some people just want the ability to draw lines for others.

And it's usually someone with virtually no skin in the game that wants to loudly proclaim how the rest of us should live.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

As noted earlier... Some of us cannot see any comparison between the Civil Rights movement of this nation for the equality of Race and the effort to bring protections to gay couples with legal rights for those unions.

Some folks see the two as the same, but to me? Civil Rights were about whether a man, simply standing there and saying and doing nothing more, should be taken as 1/4 or 100% of a full citizen or whether the original founders were right about their fractional measure to different racial types.

In Gay protections and Gay community activism, we have a situation where a man can stand there, again, but this time? Be denied nothing, be looked at with no difference and really not be known as BEING different to anyone's thinking without first taking active measures to inform others of that difference. Even then, discrimination based on that difference is protected in many states.

Equating a bakery making a cake to the horrors of racial civil rights and the slavery that is associated with it is outright offensive to some folks tho. Myself among them.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: yeahright

Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. The point is, there are laws that business owners who sell to the general public have to abide by, and one of those laws says you cannot refuse to sell a product or service to one group of people that you would sell to all other groups of people, based on race, gender, religion, and (in Colorado) sexual orientation. Those public accommodation laws have been on the books for a long time now, and it's turned out okay. This will turn out okay as well.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I'm not talking about slavery or public lynchings (although plenty of gays have been murdered simply for being gay). Take that out of the equation. I'm talking specifically about being denied public accommodations, and comparing blacks being denied public accommodations with gays being denied public accommodations. Neither should be tolerated. Neither.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright
The baker did NOT refuse to serve them. he just didn't want to make them a wedding cake. Forced to provide to anyone? The intoxicated? The shirtless? The filthy? People who are so over the top they offend and run your existing customers out? Anyone?


There's a difference between refusing service to an individual (for whatever reason) and refusing service to someone, based on the fact that they are part of a group, like a religion, a race, a sexual orientation. In other words, it's OK to say to an individual, "You're too intoxicated and you're causing a scene in my place of business... So please leave." It's not OK to say, "You're a Christian. We don't serve your kind here."



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

So if he refuses to sell a gay themed wedding cake to anyone, is that ok? The way I read it, he wasn't refusing to sell them a cake, he was refusing to sell a gay wedding cake.

What if the local skinheads show up at a Jewish bakery and want a swastika cake with "Happy Birthday Adolph, too bad you didn't finish the job" on it? Does he have to make it for them?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

He did NOT refuse them service. He offered to make them something, just not a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join