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: 25
61
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle

I really take issue with an argument based on "if this happened christians would do this". Not only would I not have a problem with somebody posting an anti christian sign at their place of business, I would get plenty of enjoyment watching how alienating over half of the population works into their business model. The ENTIRE point of separation of church and state is to PREVENT the state from forcing you or I to believe or act a certain way, not to force people to act according to somebody elses beliefs. Do you see the problem here? Using this logic why can't I make the customer eat my cake? He can make me bake it, why do his demands force my bodily compliance, but my demands have no effect on him?
This is not about the stupid cake, it is about gays wanting other people to make them feel better about themselves and their decisions. I highly doubt there is any chance they will buy and eat a cake made by someone that they had just tried to completely destroy.
I just really wish that people would leave each other alone. I have no problems with gays, I just disagree and will never agree. What do we have to do to make you NOT need other peoples approval? Can't homosexuals just be gay and let the rest of us be, you know, not gay?




posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
BTW - On March 21, 2013, Gov. John Hickenlooper signed a bill into law to allow same-sex couples to join together in civil union. The law takes effect on May 1.

Colorado will have full marriage equality in the near future.



POLLING DATA: In Colorado, only 22% of voters believe that there should be no legal recognition of relationships between same-sex couples, and a majority (53%) of Coloradans say the freedom to marry should be available for all couples. (Public Policy Polling, April 2012) www.freedomtomarry.org...



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

NO!!!!! Those were Government based laws. You really should check your history.

It was Govt created laws, which Business supported.

Now, again, your "what-if" is very nice and all, but.......it would not happen.

On to the next thing.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
It's the same damn thing.


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

To you and me, it's the same damn thing. To the baker, it's a religious issue. I'd like to think he has the right to exclude himself from participating in things he finds counter purpose to his religious beliefs. Alternatives exist, and it's not like there was undue hardship placed on the couple.

Allowing someone a choice doesn't mean we agree with the choice they make. This is some nitpicky crap that was blown way out of proportion and resulted in a commonly egregious overreaction by a judge. In my opinion.

"You like your plan? You can keep your plan".

Yeah I trust the government to just decide everything for us. Personal choice is so 1776.


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 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee


PPP surveyed 542 Colorado voters

From www.publicpolicypolling.com...

So, 542 people represent Colorado as a whole.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I would not eat a slice of that cake. I can guarantee, at the very least, it has been spat in.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Oh, I'd love to see all those anti-marriage equality people give up their government marriage license.

I'd love to see this baker give up his government marriage license.

The thing is they had a CHOICE. They had the CHOICE to marry in their church. To marry in the eyes of a God only, without a government license.

No one is forced to have a legal government marriage.

The key word is CHOICE. At this time in Colorado gays do not have that CHOICE.

This is separate from owning/operating a business that serves the public. So don't come back with the baker didn't have a choice. He had the choice not to have a business that by law is required to provide same service to all customers.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

"Choice" I like that word.

I guess "choice" only applies to those for marriage equality, and not a business owner.


Got love the "It's different" crowd.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Annee

"Choice" I like that word.

I guess "choice" only applies to those for marriage equality, and not a business owner.


Got love the "It's different" crowd.



Perhaps you should have read and addressed my entire post including the last paragraph:

"This is separate from owning/operating a business that serves the public. So don't come back with the baker didn't have a choice. He had the choice not to have a business that by law is required to provide same service to all customers."

The thing is you are off on a tangent that does not apply. None of the anti-marriage equality folks are going to give up their legal government marriage so that it is not available to gays.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright

Personal choice is so 1776.


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


Personal choice for white males, maybe. 1776 wasn't perfect.
edit on 5-6-2014 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I'm rather suspect of this man and I imagine a lot of Colorado voters feel the same way or more would be behind him. Coloradans aren't bad people. We would support this guy if we thought he was fighting the good fight, government be damned. Obviously we're not afraid of the FEDS. Imo his efforts/actions don't reflect a strong conviction.

He's standing behind his cash register using his biz as a platform for change. Profiting while he demonstrates/breaks the law isn't enough to convince me or other Coloradans of his sincerity or true intent.

If anyone of you on this thread spoke at a rally in support of the baker, I'd sit and listen. You'd probably get a lot of supporters some of whom wouldn't have given it a second thought. I'm not hearing from the baker/supporters. Absolutely nothing, no news of him in my town. How is it I can feel the passion of posters on a message board but feel nothing from this man/his supporters in my state?

It's possible the baker is in an extremely small minority here in CO. If he can't garner enough support he has to keep working until he does. That's how we bring about change. It's a slow process, requires lots of work/support from the majority, no shortcuts.

A business model should be in line with the owners beliefs/Colorado law, structure accordingly. Instead the baker wants to do biz with the general public, be awarded a religious exemption and Colorado consumers/voters just have to ignore the discrimination aspect. Absolutely no room for compromise. Sounds more like an ultimatum than a workable solution.

Just like I read/consider all the posts in this thread as a Colorado voter I need assurances that changing the law won't negatively impact all areas of life, not just cakes. I think it would. Since I'm not getting the answers I need from my fellow Coloradans or the baker, I can't support him.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: kaylaluv

NO!!!!! Those were Government based laws. You really should check your history.

It was Govt created laws, which Business supported.

Now, again, your "what-if" is very nice and all, but.......it would not happen.

On to the next thing.


The Federal Government abolished Jim Crow laws with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you think everyone in the south was happy about that, you're nuts.

en.wikipedia.org...

The free market system in the south totally supported whites-only restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, etc. so don't tell me that the free market system would stop discrimination.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Exactly. When we had a meeting about sexual harassment the man sitting next to me kept saying harass. Isn't that two words. Real funny.
He wasn't getting anything from the meeting.




reply to: burdman30ott6



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
What makes a wedding cake gay?
They sit two brides or two grooms on top?



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


All fixed now. He's just not going to make wedding cakes anymore, for anyone. He won't be in a position to have to compromise his beliefs, and no one will be discriminated against since he's still fine with providing service to everyone. So now, everyone's happy.


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 @ 12:51 PM
link   
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees.
An evil system never deserves such allegiance.
Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil.
A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-- M.Gandhi



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
What the business owner should have done ?

Is charge them some insanely amount for the cake.

Like, Yeah I will bakeyou a cake for $100 grand.

They most likely wouldn't pay it, and go elsewhere.

See a a business owner they have the right to set any price they want.


edit on 5-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: lapi7
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees.
An evil system never deserves such allegiance.
Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil.
A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-- M.Gandhi


Not allowing discrimination is evil?

Really?



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
What the business owner should have done ?

Is charge them some insanely amount for the cake.

Like, Yeah I will bakeyou a cake for $100 grand.

They most likely wouldn't pay it, and go elsewhere.

See a a business owner they have the right to set any price they want.



That is discrimination. Also price gouging, which is not legal.

All businesses in Colorado are under the same law. A customer is a customer. What you do for one, you do for all.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee




Not allowing discrimination is evil?


Sure is because what it looks like is the people a business can't discriminate against are gays.

If your a smoker see what cvs did you can.

If your a gun owner see what theatres do.

Quite the epic double standard exists there.

However those business owners won't be 'required' to under go 'sensitivity' training.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
61
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join