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.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
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.
originally posted by: BobM88
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.
originally posted by: Deaf Alien
I do not know why people here keep missing the fact that the baker will not make any wedding cake for same-sex ceremony for ANYONE, be it gay or straight people.
originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Pinke
Yeah. It would be nice to have a transcript of court proceeding to really understand the reasoning behind it.
originally posted by: undo
i read the judge's ruling and he makes several good points but i don't think he realizes what he's asking for. a privately owned business is no different than a privately owned club/fraternity/sorority and etc. and you KNOW those places have stipulations that discriminate like mad .