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: 19
61
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I don't like you and am not going to bake this cake for you. Is that not a form of discrimination? Should the store owner have had a sign stating that he has the right to refuse anyone? Why are some laws enforced and others not? I often wonder what is really happening to this once proud country.




posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

No, a black baker does not have to bake a cake with a burning cross for the KKK. Hate speech is not a protected freedom of speech.




In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5][6] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet.


hate speech



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Does a Jewish baker have to make a NAZI cake?

Or a black Baker a KKK cake?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

No, as I just said, hate speech is not a protected class.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Most people would consider gay rights, Civil Rights... because they are. Civil Rights are supposed to apply to everyone, sadly they still don't. If Civil Rights only covered black people they would be called Black Rights. You're not wrong on your position what-so-ever. Gay people still aren't fully equal in the eyes of the law or in the public, no amount of hopping around and contortionist wording is going to make the comparison unjust.
edit on 6/4/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jungian
The cake is a lie.

I fear even more the cake is only a symbol promoted
as a divisor in order to further an agenda.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: nixie_nox

Nazis, KKK, black Muslims doctrine of black supremacy, although abhorrent, are nonetheless protected by the constitution as well as any philosophy. What are not protected are deeds and crimes.


What if a Black Muslim, who believes white people are devils, goes into a white man’s bakery with his pamphlets that show white people being birthed by pigs? ( Some crazy stuff they actually believe) Does he have to bake this mans cake?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
This is a difficult issue. There probably needs to be a middle course here.

Laws can’t always cover things 100 percent. As reality can’t always reflect laws perfectly. There is probably no way we can have 100 percent assured equality and justice when certain nuances of life intrude.

Such as, it’s clear we can’t have woman, at least at this point, running up and down a professional football field. But on paper we should have this if there is equality between the sexes.

But the nuance of reality makes it so we have to have male tennis and female tennis. Male Golf and female golf. On paper this is discrimination and unequal but reality speaks for itself.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: nixie_nox

The guy in the KKK doesn’t have to have hate on a cake just a couple in a white sheet. That’s not hate, it could be construed innocently.

So if you are going to force a Christian, Muslim, or Orthodox Jew to present something that is abhorrent to his or her religious ethic, then what’s the difference?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

I have no idea what makes you think I haven't read the book. I case you weren't sure, it's fiction.

I was also being rather lighthearted - except for the part about burning people alive. They did that. They would probably do it again if they could get away with it.

I'm not impressed with any sort of 're-education', but I still think it's funny that they cry wah wahs over the thought when in their own history and likely their secret little hope dictates the burning of people they don't like.

They would put the rest of us in re-education camps in a heartbeat.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
WHAT THE H is going on around here? Who are any of you to decide who's rights are more important than anyone else?

As it's been stated elsewhere, the baker didn't refuse the couple service, they refused to make them a "wedding" cake. So if it was such a big deal that THIS PARTICULAR BAKER make the cake, they are obviously gifted at what they do. You people think you should be able to force ANYONE to use their "gift" for a reason that's against their beliefs? Wow, get a life, and stay out of mine.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
This is a fun thread LOL

He should have said "Sorry, I am not qualified to bake your cake, you need a master baker"



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: derfreebie

Are you talking about the Alleged "Gay Agenda"?

as a Card Carrying Member i can assure you we don't use cake as Symbols



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
KKCake



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Independent business policies DO NOT trump state or federal law.

Religious beliefs DO NOT trump state or federal law.

Freedom to be an idiot DOES NOT trump state or federal law.


Any hyperbolic soap boxing outside of those above three simple facts, are completely moot.


Freedom of religion IS federal law. Claiming it doesn't "trump" federal law is rather foolish in light of that fact.

The case here is simple; homosexuals have been given the legal ability, in Colorado, to discriminate against Christians.

This isn't about serving them at all; it's about participating in a "wedding" that is against religious beliefs, and in fact against state law there. The judge should resign, because he's clueless.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Never Despise
I don't think this person should be forced to make the cake, but I can at least conceive of how a legal argument might be made in this direction.

What I REALLY find objectionable is the forced "sensitivity training." For Ing somebody to provide a good or service is bad enough but saying they need to be mentally changed by the government is the kind of brainwashing one associates with Maoist China or North Korea. What is the legal basis for forcing this person to undergo some kind of government mental indoctrination?


If the homosexual couple was told they had to undergo "sensitivity training" in regards to their attitude to the baker, not one person defending this ruling would claim that was right.

The hypocrisy is overwhelming.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Never Despise
I don't think this person should be forced to make the cake, but I can at least conceive of how a legal argument might be made in this direction.

What I REALLY find objectionable is the forced "sensitivity training." For Ing somebody to provide a good or service is bad enough but saying they need to be mentally changed by the government is the kind of brainwashing one associates with Maoist China or North Korea. What is the legal basis for forcing this person to undergo some kind of government mental indoctrination?


If the homosexual couple was told they had to undergo "sensitivity training" in regards to their attitude to the baker, not one person defending this ruling would claim that was right.

The hypocrisy is overwhelming.


What did the homosexual couple do wrong aside from disclose their sexuality to the baker?

I also don't agree with anyone having to be forced to undergo any sort of education outside of their own personal choice, but come on - what did the couple actually do wrong?

I can tell you what the baker did wrong. Maybe people should start actively discriminating by placing big signs in their windows? It would make things easier and we'd all be able to tell who is a nazi and who is not.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

I can tell you what the baker did wrong. Maybe people should start actively discriminating by placing big signs in their windows? It would make things easier and we'd all be able to tell who is a nazi and who is not.


DEAL! If that’s all it takes to resolve this is a sign that says we are a Christian establishment, you got it. Can we shake on that?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

I can tell you what the baker did wrong. Maybe people should start actively discriminating by placing big signs in their windows? It would make things easier and we'd all be able to tell who is a nazi and who is not.


DEAL! If that’s all it takes to resolve this is a sign that says we are a Christian establishment, you got it. Can we shake on that?


Yep!



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:55 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.


I'm not clear on how the baker knew they were gay? I assume they said they were getting married and wanted a wedding cake?

I honestly have no ulterior motive in asking this, I'm actually curious how the baker knew.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join