It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 20
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:13 PM

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.

I don't think that's entirely true, GreenEyes.

Myself, I've seen a few things brought against Christians that weren't right, and I can roll off a bunch of instances where, yes, gay people have over reacted to things. Refusing someone a haircut on account of their religious or political beliefs is the same instance as the whole cake thing. It happened, bunch of people supported it, I don't agree with it. The moment I'm so offended and upset at the state of my country to the point of extreme distress I go off and protest, I don't just start refusing to work for individual people.

I just kind of like the idea that, in the interests of getting along, we provide services to each other. I've lived that mantra working for some fairly intense church and political groups in the past as well as real estate agents and lawyers who I seem to dislike on general principal.

In countries where this hasn't been this general rule I find people can't be themselves and the tension is palpable. I get that not everyone agrees, but that's the problem with signing 300 million people up to the same rules, someone always has a different idea. They're not even necessarily applying their own idea unfairly, they're quite nice and common sensical persons, but it has to be done one way or the other.

My other two thoughts are, I don't think this is as regular occurrence as this thread would indicate, and regarding sensitivity training, yes that's nonsense and part of me wonders if the judge is being a troll.

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:18 PM

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.

I don't know, but it's likely they were just acting the way anyone else does. That would easily give them away. It's possible one or both were camp, it's possible they actually mentioned it.

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:20 PM
a reply to: Pinke

Of course the judge is being a troll - it's possible they did this to get on people's nerves and cause exactly this sort of response from both camps.

Why are there even camps anymore, though? Surely we can all just get along? Come on, christians, can't we?

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:58 PM
Did not know cakes could be gay? Tell me how does one make a "gay cake"?

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 10:18 PM
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.

Would the baker make the wedding cake for same-sex ceremony for a STRAIGHT person who is a friend or a relative of a gay couple?

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 10:22 PM
Also it is alleged that the baker made a wedding cake for dogs.


If a gay couple came in and told him that they're gay. He'd be like uh ok fine good for you but what do you want? They will be like oh yeah well I want a wedding cake for dog marriage. He wouldn't have any problem with it.

Now do you see?

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 10:52 PM

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.

There are a large number of persons on all sides blatantly ignoring reality or not referring to the judgement that was laid down. The reasoning behind this is referred to in the judgement.

Would really like to see some point by point rebuttals of the actual published reasoning behind the judgement where these things are already addressed at length with references to other case histories. It's not a rhetorical trap or asking persons to waste their time, I'd just actually really like to see where people think these laws went wrong and can be improved without opening loop holes for price fixing, segregated markets, and open hostility.

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 11:01 PM
a reply to: Pinke

Yeah. It would be nice to have a transcript of court proceeding to really understand the reasoning behind it.

Maybe there are a lot of information omitted in the news. So we don't really know what went on.

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:59 AM

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.

Posted a summary of the judgement here and you can read the judge's reasoning for the initial decision in full.

Would recommend reading the full decision since it gives the technical justifications which seem really important (at least to me). One thing it certainly does is answer a lot of queries such as the 'racist cake' and 'illegal wedding' discussions. Honestly, the 'gay vs religious' part of the debate just clouds things. It's a marketplace regulation discussion above all else. It's right to purchase vs right to sell, and it has a historical basis thousands of years old.

Marketplace regulation is one of the things many historians credit for allowing civilizations to grow and thrive despite differences which I think is something easy to lose sight of in the western culture of abundance.
edit on 5-6-2014 by Pinke because: Honestly ...

edit on 5-6-2014 by Pinke because: My grammar is terribad

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:26 AM
a reply to: Pinke

Now Now, why would anyone go and read the actual transcript to gain understanding of the judgement, when they can spout hysterical comments about freedom denial and compliance to the gay mafia agenda.....
Silly Silly Aussie

Thank you for posting, I will read it tonight , as I suspect this is a simple matter of breaking the discrimination law and a punishment being issued. Interested to read the judges comments.
edit on 5-6-2014 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 03:47 AM
"This establishment reserves the right to refuse service to anyone"

I'm sorry, but by stepping on a business' property, you implicitly agree to their "terms of service". It's not any different then logging onto a web site and signing their ToS. The difference is, a B&M establishment posts theirs at the door. When you walk through that door, you're agreeing to abide by those terms. If the government has the ability to circumvent your own rights for your own established business, then that means you don't actually own that blood, sweat, and tears you put into that establishment.

R.I.P. America is very apropos, in my opinion. This has nothing to do with gay rights, it has to do with freedom, plain and simple. The gay rights movement is just another tool to leverage freedom away from us, just like war, and politics.

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:45 AM
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 . for example, women can't be masons in the same temple at the same time, with male masons. they have to have a separate meeting time/room. poor people can't become members at clubs for the wealthy. republicans can't become members of the democratic party without becoming democrats, and so on and so on. this ruling is like pandora's box on steroids.
edit on 5-6-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 05:45 AM

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 .

A business isn't defined as a private club. To explain:

The bakery is defined as being public accommodations which are covered by the 1964 Civil Rights Act which means they must offer their service to all members of the public except under a narrow list of exemptions, one of which is legitimate business interest such as public safety or profit.

In many countries, businesses are considered to be separate entities (sometimes described as 'persons') from their owner with their own declared public purpose which is used to evaluate claims of business interest in discrimination cases and in cases where exemptions are to be granted.

Private clubs are not defined as public accommodations, but are therefore subject to different responsibilities, laws and often tax rates. This means it's difficult to create a public business and call it a 'private club' since one of the definitions of a public accommodation is that it affects commerce. One of the reasons for this is to prevent private clubs being used in price fixing and avoiding United States antitrust legislation which prevents exclusive dealing etc ...

Night clubs are public accommodations but slightly different, since at times they are allowed to discriminate if it is a legitimate business interest; in most cases to present a certain image of quality of clientèle which is part of their core business. This goes back to a business being an entity with its own goals and purpose. The owner of a bar may wish to discriminate against a particular demographic, but the bar itself as an entity needs a legitimate business interest to do so. A similar rationale applies to things like 'ladies night' offering cheaper drinks to women to encourage men to come in etc ... However this isn't a license to do as one pleases, a number of nightclubs have been found guilty of racial discrimination in the US and elsewhere for either discriminating against one race in particular or all races except one.

I hope this helps? haha

I can understand if people's response to business law is a strong desire to set fire to everything and live in the woods alone, but at least you'll know why you want to live in the woods right?

And thanks Zazza.

Disclaimer: Pinke is giving no legal advice. Most of Pinke's advice is for display purposes only, do not touch or use the advice. Pinke may or may not have been on a horse whilst writing this. Pinke may have made errors in the above post which may get you sued, Pinke takes no responsibility but will watch your court case with sympathy and popcorn. Pinke is not an equal opportunities employer.
edit on 5-6-2014 by Pinke because: Disclaimer

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 06:32 AM
a reply to: Aedaeum

And by opening a business in the public domain a business is agreeing to State and Federal ToS. The government isn't circumventing any rights here, people are just entirely ignorant of Law and think that freedom means they have the right to discriminate wherever they want to. You can discriminate all you like in your home, private clubs even church's but the minute you are in the public, and that includes any business open to the public... you may not discriminate.

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 06:49 AM
How far is this going to go... honestly...

So you no longer have the right to refuse someone service based on your assesment of them as a decent person or not???

I mean how far do we take that?? What if I walk into the cafe down the street and say to the waitress "Give me a f#*king burger you stupid cu*t"

Can I sue when they refuse to serve me???

And who the hell wants to force someone to serve them anyway??? I mean if I walked into a restaurant that had posted "we don't serve blue-eyed white-folk" I would tell them they are idiots, but thanks for the heads up; since I prefer to not have people pissing in my food...

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 06:58 AM
Where in the bible does it say thou shall not provide delicious baked goods to those who live an alternative lifestyle? There are quite a few things about loving the sinner and hating the sin though...

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:01 AM
I own my own business and the government will not and cannot tell me with who or where or when to do business. It is not the government's place to dictate private business. My company is not publicly traded so nobody has a say so in my business affairs. I do not support the gay agenda or the gay lifestyle but that is a personal side note and has no bearing on my business. I could care less about that sort of thing when my business is concerned. A homosexual's money spends the same as a straight person's does. I will add this though I see the bakery's stand though. By being in a business that caters to weddings baking a cake for a gay couple is completely in violation of their faith. I am in telecom and have no such worries. I will post this thought again:
The small town I live in has one McNasties in it and it is a franchise store. The man that owns it owns several locations and he has always had strict dress codes. Visible tattoos and piercings have always been a no no. A few years back a woman was relieved of her job from there due to a tattoo that she got. A few months ago I was at the drive thru and a very feminine fellow was working the window and he had several piercings and a large tattoo on his forearm of two male symbols intertwined and a rainbow tattoo on his wrist. He still works there. I live in a very religious town where a private Christian college is the lifeblood of the town. The college questioned the owner as to why the gay gentleman was allowed to keep his job with his multiple piercings and tattoos. The response was "It is not in my hands, I am not allowed to let him go".
This sort of thing has gotten way out of hand. I have tattoos but all can be hidden under a short sleeve shirt. Some venues it is just not professional to have visible tattoos especially ones with so much political and religious debate behind them.

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:16 AM
a reply to: Christian Voice

Nah, owning a business does not give you a right to discriminate on any basis...

Government should and I am glad "IT IS" capable to force people who still live in apartheid mind set to comply with laws of 21st century, no 0BC laws.

Just imagine, you have your own business and decide to place sign like this... should you have a right to do so?

I probably would just get cake, never eat it from that baker... just to prove him that he can't use his so called 'religious view' to discriminate against me.

ps. Just out of curiosity, how would you react if you stop a cab, and driver tells you that he serves only Muslims, because of his religious views?! Be sincere in your reply, please.

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:20 AM
a reply to: SuperFrog
I think that's his right to do so however it should be posted on the outside of the cab to begin with. Stores around here post all of the time that they will refuse service to anyone with no shoes or shirt. The Peabody Mall in downtown Memphis post on the outside of every entrance that baggy clothes, hats on backwards, and revealing clothing will not be worn in the mall. Funny how nobody protests these types of things.

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:44 AM
Where are you people living in that you think that "government has no say in what I do in my private business"?

No say, really? So, you woke up in Somalia this morning? No rule of law? Just "whatever I believe is right"?

Where do you come up with these ideas??? Honestly. Businesses are subject to laws just like the citizenry is. Period.

You don't live in an Ayn Randian paradise; you live in the United States of America.

The guy broke the law. It's very plain, simple and direct. Some of the loudest voices here are continually screeching about State's Rights, and yet, the People of Colorado passed these laws, and now, you want to abridge them.

Think about for a minute. Think about the ludicrosity of your position.

new topics

top topics

<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in