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: 24
61
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Christian Voice
a reply to: dawnstar
People being refused a wedding cake need protecting how ? The owner did not say get out or you are dead did he ? They were told NO about something and like children they threw a hissy.
As far as the seatbelt thing, I thought you were questioning laws in regard to the Bible. You asked if the Bible says it is wrong to bake a cake for gays. So I asked if the Bible said it is wrong to wear a seatbelt.


Let's just for a second imagine that actually opposite happened - that gay couple own business and someone was refused wedding cake because they are christian...

In my opinion, you are very dishonest if you tell that this scenario would not make you mad, and that you would just look down and exit the shop...

As far as I know some religious people, you would see something like Westboro Baptist Church - this time at shop...

Interesting thing in my opinion that you think about your self as moral and human, yet you would discriminate someone just because of sexual orientation. That is real face of religion - hypocracy...




posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I could care less about the judges summary. It is just another judge overstepping his authority just like the other judges overturning the decisions that millions voted for about gay marriage. These idiots think they somehow know better than the millions of voters that voted against it already. Arrogant politicians....



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
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


I don't carry signs or care whatsoever for preferences. In fact
a roommate of several years and I were totally divergent in
regard to preferences in many areas, and we'll always be fast
friends. I was referring to the narrative in the thread not really
touching on, but necessary to the real issue of legislating indi-
vidual criteria and in fact legal limits for tolerance re "morality".

Even the baker wanted to sell cakes, and now he must sell them
per an order of the court. And it was called illegal for him to refuse
to sell one to a couple of people that were engaging in something
that offended his sensibilities... which offended the clients.

It's that simple. We now are disallowed offense by others' lifestyles.
Whether a civil or criminal matter is irrelevant, the pretense had
no place in court at all. The whole controversy should have been
summarily thrown out just for the subject matter.
The agenda is somewhat obvious, and has no need to be hidden:
the government with this decision will be the arbiter of morality.
The judge also elevated self to the post of High Priest. No emoticon



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Flux8

You can't use religion to break whatever law you want. You can't get away with murdering someone by saying it is because of your religious beliefs that you murdered them. You can't use religion to take away someone's civil or human rights.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog
No, see the difference between you and I is that I can accept that it's their right to serve whomever they choose and I would go somewhere else. However I will tell you this that when embarking on something like that I research a company first. At the very least I would ask around about the place beforehand.
It's the same thing as them trying to force the PRIVATE group BSA to cater to them. Thing is I would never attempt to join a gay and lesbian group let alone join and then force them to cater to my beliefs. Like someone posted before "They want to be acknowledged for the special snowflakes they are". Do you really think that gay couple cared at all about that cake ? NO! They wanted to see if they could force the owner to cave his beliefs to their choices, plain and simple.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66


Are you even reading what your'e writing in your slavering desire to equate ludicrous examples?

SO, because you say so, it must be.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
Are you really comparing "sensitivity training" (*) to the Jewish Holocaust???

Funny, as I never compared "sensitivity training" to what happened to the Jews. Maybe you should learn yourself some history.
The use of re-education camps were used by the Nazis and the USSR on their own people.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
Is the baker being forced to have sex with other men? i.e. being converted to homosexuality???

How does this apply to anything? Are you fantasizing about something?


originally posted by: Gryphon66
(*) Of note, I personally find the assignment of "sensitivity training" to be foolish, but that is not the issue being argued here.


Oh, foolish is just the tip of what it is.

Totalitarian is the term you were looking for.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

As much as I had promised myself I was going to stay out of this, I'm compelled to offer one final (from me) thought.

I personally have no problem with gay marriage. If two of my gay friends were going to get married, I'd have no problem buying the cake, picking it up, going to the ceremony and dancing with their moms at the reception (which probably wouldn't be at Big Earl's Bait Shack in Pittsburgh, TX). And I'd be happy for them.

For some people, marriage is a civil ceremony. For others, it's that and also a religious sacrament. That's an extremely serious thing for some, not so much for others.

From the get-go the gay marriage proponents (of which I am one) have strenuously argued that it shouldn't make any difference to anyone else what two consenting adults want to do, and if you don't like it you don't need to participate in it. With which I wholeheartedly agree.

But now we have a different circumstance. Living in a society and not individual vacuum packed silos, we interact. Some of that interaction is messy, and due to all of us drawing lines in various places, we frequently cross each other's lines.

So now, we have a situation in which the full weight and might of The Government is being brought down on an individual who, due to his convictions, wanted to choose to not lend his participation to an event.

He didn't refuse them service. He offered to make them anything BUT a wedding cake. Their orientation didn't cause him to not make them a cake. What the cake was for caused him to decline participation.

Now I personally think that's a silly decision, but I respect his right to make it as much as I respect the right of the couple to marry.

See, this is where it goes south so fast. It goes from, "if you don't like it, don't be involved" to "You'll be involved or the Government will rain down on you like 7 kinds of hammered hell for 'reeducation' and whatever other PC punitive measures they can think of". Sort of sounds like, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" doesn't it? Suuuuure, this won't affect you, don't worry about it.

I don't like it, even a little bit. It's draconian, stupid and wrong. And it isn't any sort of good way to change any minds on the issue. In fact, I think it does just the opposite.

I believe people ought to be permitted to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't do harm to anyone else. I think there needs to be a helluva good compelling reason to force anyone to do something against their will. If forced government indoctrination doesn't send a chill up your spine, I don't know what would.

You want to get married, get married. You don't want to make a cake, don't make a cake.

You want to work as a truck driver, but your religion forbids you from transporting alcohol (maybe), get another job where that isn't part of the requirement.

But oh, no the government will pick and choose those battles carefully.

Props to everyone, race, religion (or lack thereof), nationality, political affiliation, or sexual preference notwithstanding. I just wish we could quit forcing our personal drawn line boundaries on everyone else.

And with that, I'm out.


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



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: nixie_nox
a reply to: macman

People who wantonly uses Nazi Germany because someone does something they don't like is not only highly offensive, it shows extreme ignorance of a historical period, not to mention, it is just plain played out. At the very least, it makes you look like a drama queen.

If you want to see a police state and political control, you should read up on North Korea.




MMMMM. I love Wontons.


But, now that I am hungry for Chinese food, I must address this and begin my plans for lunch.

I outlined the use of re-education camps a couple responses above this.

But, thanks for throwing in North Korea as an example as well.
Guess that Colorado law has turned it closer to N. Korea.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Christian Voice

no it wasn't for a same sex wedding. now listen carefully:

1. same sex weddings are not legal yet.
2. a wedding is legally 2 people of opposite sex getting a wedding license and all that jazzola. they couldn't cause they aren't allowed to, as a same sex couple, in colorado.
3. so he wasn't making a cake for a wedding. he was making a cake for 2 gay people.

it's almost a carbon copy of the meat sacrificed to idols thing. he literally created his own stumbling block to trip over.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: nixie_nox
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


How exactly is a burning cross cake hate speech???

Oh, because you think that it applies within your argument platform.

And why would a simple cake, of a Nazi with say a swastika be constituted as hate speech??

No one stated it had to have "Die Jew" on it. Or, "burn blackie".

Your hurt feeling mentality is fun, and should allow you to always apply the "It's different" attitude that Progressives are known for.

At least we know how you are going to go about this.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: yeahright

Okay, just humor me here. Let's just hypothetically say that any and all business owners are allowed to turn someone away because they are gay. Let's say in the state of Colorado, every restaurant owner, every hotel owner, every grocery store owner uses their God-given right to turn away all gays from their establishment. Is this okay? Should gays be allowed to be shut out of every business establishment in the state?



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Pray tell me how one makes a gender specific cake, LOL?



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer
Your thinking is all wrong and you need some "re-training". You will like olives, because if you don't, it's offensive and racist AND AND AND homophobic!! So just like'em for everybodys sake. Eat'em! They're gooood!

But seriously, how can a court force something like this on a business owner? He has a right to his religious views and should be able to serve whomever he wants to. He will probably make them some "good" cakes now. I would not eat there if I were homosexual. You don't mess with the people who make your food.

If I went to a bakery that was owned by homosexuals, and they refused to serve me because I was straight, I would tell them off, but I also think that they have a right to do it and I would just go to some other bakery.......Unless they won't serve me either......then where am I gonna get my cake fix at??? hmm Make it myself, I reckon. Or.... or open a bakery that serves only people like me!!! yeah!



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

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

One last humoring. No. Denying service and not accommodating a specific request are two entirely different things. In my opinion. I'm not sure how you test for 'gayness' to be able to deny service to gays, anyway, but that's a whole other issue, and I sure don't think that should be permissible and wasn't what this baker was doing. in 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, 5 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: yeahright

Fair enough, that's your opinion. My opinion is that refusing to sell someone the exact same product you sell to everyone else is denying a service. If that is the only product the person is wanting, and you are denying them that product, you are denying service. At least we do agree that we cannot allow one business owner to deny service to someone based simply on their race, religion, national origin or (in Colorado) sexual orientation. Because if we allow one business owner to deny service, we have to allow all business owners to deny service, and that's a slippery slope we don't want to do down (again).

What you are saying would be like a Mexican walking into a restaurant and ordering steak fajitas and being told by the owner that he won't serve steak fajitas to Mexicans, but he would be willing to serve the Mexican a bean burrito instead. The Mexican says, "but I don't want a bean burrito and I just saw that white guy over there getting steak fajitas served to him", and the owner says, "that's because he's white. I don't serve steak to Mexicans". Insert gay and straight over Mexican and white- it's the same damn thing.
edit on 5-6-2014 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I'm trying to get my head around this and have only read up to page 8 but am I right in thinking that Same sex marriage is illegal in the county/state where a man was ordered to do something promoting an ideal (same sex marriage), that the county states itself is actually illegal?

I have no problem with sexual orientation or religious beliefs but would never ever eat something that someone was 'forced' to make me for obvious reasons. Seriously, who would? So it was a pretty stupid or at best a token ruling IMHO.

The ruling has probably caused more damage and created more resentment and only helped to solidify prejudice, whilst at the same time driving such prejudism underground, avoiding lawsuits and making it more difficult to tackle head on.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

If allowed to operate how it should, the Free Market would not allow this.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
If that is the only product the person is wanting, and you are denying them that product, you are denying service. At least we do agree that we cannot allow one business owner to deny service to someone based simply on their race, religion, national origin or (in Colorado) sexual orientation. Because if we allow one business owner to deny service, we have to allow all business owners to deny service, and that's a slippery slope we don't want to do down (again).



I lived before the Fair Housing Act, the Disabikity Act, and Civil Rights Act.

Just one point: it's interesting how municiple funds (and other) can be selectively distributed. How general town maintenance, schoos, parks, roads, structures, etc. can be deemed selectively more important in one area over another. Discrimination is far reaching. It can not be allowed. Unfortunately, it has to be forced by government laws.

It is a slippery slope. Any minority that is being discriminated against has to be protected by laws. People like this baker force the hand of law.

Oh, and an additional point to all. Gays are just people. They are individuals, not a group think.

Some are very religious. Stop separating them from the sanctity of Marriage. Some feel very strongly about being married in the eyes of a God.


edit on 5-6-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: PurpleHorizon
I'm trying to get my head around this and have only read up to page 8 but am I right in thinking that Same sex marriage is illegal in the county/state where a man was ordered to do something promoting an ideal (same sex marriage), that the county states itself is actually illegal?


Marriage ceremonies are not illegal in the state of Colorado. There are churches who perform same-sex ceremonies in the state of Colorado. You can have a party at your house celebrating your same-sex marriage, with a cake - that's not illegal in the state of Colorado. You just can't get a marriage license in the state of Colorado. The couple in question got legally married in another state. They have family and friends in Colorado, so they were just having an unofficial wedding/celebration for their family and friends to help them celebrate. Got it?


I have no problem with sexual orientation or religious beliefs but would never ever eat something that someone was 'forced' to make me for obvious reasons. Seriously, who would? So it was a pretty stupid or at best a token ruling IMHO.

The ruling has probably caused more damage and created more resentment and only helped to solidify prejudice, whilst at the same time driving such prejudism underground, avoiding lawsuits and making it more difficult to tackle head on.


Others said the exact same thing you just said when the public accommodation laws were put into effect during the civil rights period of the 1960's. Establishments who turned blacks away were then forced to serve blacks. That was over 50 years ago, and I don't recall hearing any mysterious poisonings of blacks. Now, no one thinks twice about serving blacks. (Don't yell at me for bringing it up Wrabbit!!!)















posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: kaylaluv

If allowed to operate how it should, the Free Market would not allow this.


But the free market DID allow it - back before the civil rights act. It took laws forcing people to re-think their prejudices.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join