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: 17
61
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
That makes no sense, why would they make swastika cakes for other patrons?


Exactly. So they would not be obligated to make one for anyone because they don't make swastika cakes.


The Jewish man, a holocaust survivor is asked to bake a birthday cake and he is told that it is in celebration of Hitler's Birthday and all they want is plain white frosting and "Happy Birthday" on it. Should the baker who bakes the same cake he does for everyone else not have the right to refuse to bake a cake that commemorates the man who put him in Sobibor ? Really? You think he not have that right?


Does he have the right? Sure. But it may break the laws in his state. if the laws of the state are violated, then he will pay the price for breaking the law. (It doesn't matter what I think)
edit on 6/4/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: macman
This question has been posed several times over and is willfully ignored.


It has not been ignored. If a Jewish bakery doesn't already make swastika cakes for other patrons, then they are under no obligation to make one for the skinheads.

This Colorado baker made wedding cakes. The couple asked for one and were immediately refused and told it was because the baker didn't believe in gay marriage.


Oh, so now it is different. I love the Progressive way of thinking.

He did not offer wedding cakes for Gay weddings. SO.......while not being a Gay wedding cake, it was for a Gay wedding. Something that he did not offer.

So again, the question is posed, once more. Would a KKK member be valid in requiring a Black baker to make him a Burning Cross Cake?

This is a very simple question, yet you and many others seem to dance around answering this.

A simple "Yes" or "No" is requested.

edit on 4-6-2014 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
RE: The ad absurdum argument about "swastika cakes" ...

In this country, American Neo-Nazis are covered under the same Constitution that I see so many here waving in our faces only when convenient to their argument.

Reference Skokie IL for specific examples.

If a baker makes custom cakes for the public, they make custom cakes for the public.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
That makes no sense, why would they make swastika cakes for other patrons?


Exactly. So they would not be obligated to make one for anyone because they don't make swastika cakes.


The Jewish man, a holocaust survivor is asked to bake a birthday cake and he is told that it is in celebration of Hitler's Birthday and all they want is plain white frosting and "Happy Birthday" on it. Should the baker who bakes the same cake he does for everyone else not have the right to refuse to bake a cake that commemorates the man who put him in Sobibor ? Really? You think he not have that right?


Does he have the right? Sure. But it may break the laws in his state. if the laws of the state are violated, then he will pay the price for breaking the law. (It doesn't matter what I think)


So the law is the law, right or wrong? You'd agree that the Jewish guy should be punished for not baking a cake for a skinhead? Wow.

I guess some people stand for principles, some do not.


AS for the Constitution, I see nowhere in there where a private entity should be forced to accommodate someone they don't want to. The 14th Amendment is about equal protection under the law. A baker neither makes nor enforces the law, so that does not apply and he has a right to his beliefs so the state forcing him to do something he does not believe in actually violated his equal protection under the law.
edit on 4-6-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I guess about as much of a right as to force someone to be "re-educated".



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I guess about as much of a right as to force someone to be "re-educated".



Hey, if they don't like how you think, they want to re-educate you. Several fellow travelers have done that throughout history. We should ask Dith Pran what he thinks about the new progressive American desire to re-educate people who don't think "correctly."



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
What I see are hypocrites who cast absurd situations (like swastikas and burning crosses) as equal to a request to purchase what the business offers every day of the year to every patron who will pay: a wedding cake.

It is not the same thing, and you know it.

Jews were tortured, deprived of their lives and the lives of their families at the behest of the Nazi Swastika.

Blacks have been tortured, deprived of their lives and the lives of their families at the behest of the KKK's Burning Cross.

BUT:

NO Christian has EVER been TORTURED or DEPRIVED OR THEIR LIVES and the LIVES OF THEIR FAMILIES by the marriage of two men or women.

Indeed, there are some here who have shown that they have zero moral standing by making such ludicrous, absurd and malicious comparisons ... but that is NOT Benevolent Heretic.
edit on 16Wed, 04 Jun 2014 16:18:53 -050014p042014666 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling corrections.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
He did not offer wedding cakes for Gay weddings.


It doesn't matter what it's for. It's a wedding cake. Whether it's for dogs, birds, a straight couple, a gay couple, an interracial couple, or to run over in the Wal-Mart parking lot. It's a commodity. An item for sale.


Would a KKK member be valid is requiring a Black baker to make him a Burning Cross Cake?


Does he make Burning Cross Cakes for other people? If so, then yes. If not, no.

It's not a simple yes or no question. Because it depends. Let's say you make sandwiches at your sandwich shop. Turkey, Ham and Bologna. Someone requests a fish sandwich. You have no obligation to make him something that you don't already make.

But if he asks for a turkey sandwich and you refuse to make it for him because he's black, you're likely going to face a lawsuit.
edit on 6/4/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic



But if he asks for a turkey sandwich and you refuse to make it for him because he's black, you're likely going to face a lawsuit.


The baker didn't refuse service to the gay couple because they're gay, he refused to make wedding cake for same-sex ceremony.

This is the very point where everyone is hung on or not understanding.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's nice. I like how you discount what others state so your platform continues to appear stable.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Just wondering if this baker needs any help putting on his big boy pants?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
It's a tough one. Government shouldn't force him, but then he's totally wrong and living in the wrong century back when people really thought homosexuality was wrong. Slowly but surely we're evolving. I just really don't want the government enforcing and guiding our cultural/social evolution.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's nice. I like how you discount what others state so your platform continues to appear stable.


Your comment has no meaning. I haven't discounted what anyone said. Care to be a bit more specific?

ADDED IN EDIT: And, in general, are you familar at all with the idea of debating? Have you read what is happening in this thread? What you yourself have said to denigrate and diminish to nothing the arguments of others in this VERY Thread?

Are you kidding????
edit on 16Wed, 04 Jun 2014 16:26:34 -050014p042014666 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Also...


originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic



Would a KKK member be valid is requiring a Black baker to make him a Burning Cross Cake?


Does he make Burning Cross Cakes for other people? If so, then yes. If not, no.


Would the baker make cakes for same-sex ceremonies for STRAIGHT people?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

It doesn't matter what it's for. It's a wedding cake. Whether it's for dogs, birds, a straight couple, a gay couple, an interracial couple, or to run over in the Wal-Mart parking lot. It's a commodity. An item for sale.

So, a wedding cake for 2 skinheads would be forced upon a Jewish baker?





originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Does he make Burning Cross Cakes for other people? If so, then yes. If not, no.

Why does it matter? It is just a cake. A commodity. It isn't as if the Black Baker has to agree with the request, or the lifestyle of the people requesting it.



originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
It's not a simple yes or no question. Because it depends. Let's say you make sandwiches at your sandwich shop. Turkey, Ham and Bologna. Someone requests a fish sandwich. You have no obligation to make him something that you don't already make.

It is simple. It is only complex when it doesn't suite your arguing basis.



originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
But if he asks for a turkey sandwich and you refuse to make it for him because he's black, you're likely going to face a lawsuit.

But....the owner was beaten by several blacks while growing up the only white kid in a HS based in Compton. So, since he has been beaten in the past, he should be able to refuse service. Because after all, we need to take into account the owners past struggles in race relations.


And again. He refused to make a wedding cake, but offered to make anything else.
He did not make wedding cakes for Gay weddings. The Gay couple were denied a style of something, not denied service.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
The baker didn't refuse service to the gay couple because they're gay, he refused to make wedding cake for same-sex ceremony.


Who else would have a same-sex ceremony? Straight couples are not same-sex. Taking this to the absurd doesn't help anything. It's none of the baker's business what the cake was FOR.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Go back and read what you stated, then apply my comment.

Can't help it if you don't understand this.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
The baker didn't refuse service to the gay couple because they're gay, he refused to make wedding cake for same-sex ceremony.


Who else would have a same-sex ceremony? Straight couples are not same-sex. Taking this to the absurd doesn't help anything. It's none of the baker's business what the cake was FOR.


You yourself said this


Does he make Burning Cross Cakes for other people? If so, then yes. If not, no.


In response to

Would a KKK member be valid is requiring a Black baker to make him a Burning Cross Cake?


Will the baker make cakes for same-sex ceremony for a straight person who are a friend or relative to gay couple?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
It's none of the baker's business what the cake was FOR.


And it is none of the customer's business why they are refused an item I guess.

Seems that if the Gay couple would have kept their mouths shut, they would have had their coveted cake, for a nondescript wedding.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
It's against the law in the baker's state to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

The facts prove that the baker has no religious compunction about making cakes for non-Christian endorsed weddings.

Consider for a moment the degree of absurdity some here are having to resort to ... and the absurdity of the situation becomes clear.

Bakers bake cakes. This baker has never investigated the nature of the ceremonies the cakes were made for before.

It's against the law in the baker's state to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

The baker broke the law and is paying the price. That is a real situation in a real place with real people.




top topics



 
61
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join