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: 28
61
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
The man broke a discrimination law and now is being forced to comply. I didn't pay my speeding ticket soin placeI was forced to comply by going to jail. Not a violation of my rights America is not dead I failed to comply so now was forced. Quite simply really you break a law you deal with consequences. Sure you have the right to be a bigot but discriminating in real life situations is against the law.

Stop using religion to back prejudice and bigotry. When people embrace this behavior these laws are put In place. ats seems to be embracing prejudice and ignorrance its really disturbing




posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: undo

Have you ever heard of the Texas State School Board? C'mon, if I haven't clammered onto the rooftop for that I never will.

I have no problem with conservatives. Conservatives have opinions that they can back-up with facts, or at least fact-based opinions.

I have a problem with ignorant intransigent bigotry.


what about the texas state school board? i guess i'm not aware of what they are up to. i would include yourself in that description (although i wouldn't call you ignorant or intransgient), because unfortunately, the issue is not as cut and dry as it may seem. you're picking a side in an issue that has 2 sides, both perfectly legit sides no less. this isn't a matter of law, really, it's a matter of compassion. when people have deeply held convictions about a subject, such as yourself or the cake shop baker, we can't force them to see our view, as that only creates resentment and rebelliousness. calling them various insulting names also causes problems. if you wish to stir that type of reaction in people, instead of guiding them into the light of reason, just keep it up.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not a right winger and I don't watch msm at all. It seems that you are the one holding on to stereotypes.

There have been many real and unbiased studies done on the subject that support my assertions.

Just because you don't consider it perversion or deviancy doesn't change the meaning of the words.

I'm not sure what history I have supposedly rewritten.

I don't think you get the fact that I have never had the right to marry a dude either.

How am I bigoted? I understand that people are different and that is fine with me as long as it does not infringe upon my person, property or rights.

There does seem to be a bigot here but it is not me.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: undo

Wow ... okay, basics on the significance to education of the Texas State School Board:

Texas School Board's Curriculim Decisions Affect Entire USA

How Texas Inflicts Bad Textbooks on Us All

Etc. Basically the Texas State School Board are unrepentantly Ultra Right Wing and since Texas orders the Majority of the textbooks in the nation, you get creationism listed as science, etc.

This particular issue (the cake baker) is exactly as cut and dry as it seems. He didn't make a wedding cake because the couple was a same-sex couple. That's against the law in Colorado. The baker is paying the legal price for breaking the law.

... but it's just NOT an issue with two sides. If plying one's business fairly and openly with the public conflicts with one's religious beliefs, then you need to choose a different business. Period. The facts in this case are clear. The baker sells cakes to fake dog weddings, but not to a legal union recognized by the State of Colorado. No one is forcing the baker to attend the wedding, approve of the wedding, have sex with people of the same gender, etc.

He is being forced, sadly, to overcome his bias and perform the services of his stated business.

It's not a matter of compassion except for the absence of it on the part of the baker, perhaps. "Deeply held convictions" do not allow for the law to be broken. People are forced to obey the law everyday. That only creates resentment among law-breakers.

As far as this statement of yours, I have no idea of what you mean; can you clarify?



calling them various insulting names also causes problems. if you wish to stir that type of reaction in people, instead of guiding them into the light of reason, just keep it up.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: begoodbees
a reply to: Gryphon66
There have been many real and unbiased studies done on the subject that support my assertions.


Good. Quote a few peer-reviewed, scientifically based studies that support your assertion(s) and I will make a heart-felt public apology to you. The fact you want to prove is that homosexual orientation is learned not innate.

I'll be glad to review your material.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

you realize there have been many laws on many law books in many governments over the millenia that were not always right? also, you do realize, i hope, that the more authority you give the gov to interfere in the moral choices of your fellow countrymen (by default this would include interfering with gay marriage) make, the more power will be available to someone else who may not hold your world view, later on. this is why the place was set up to provide lots of wiggle room for everyone, generally speaking, and then fine tuned the other stuff along the way, like abolishing slavery, giving women and minorities the vote, but till recently, business owners were still free to hire who they wanted and sell / buy from, who they wanted. the morality of their choices were questioned in their own churches -- for example, the idea that you only buy from other christians, was frowned upon BY OTHER CHURCH MEMBERS. here's an example



the reason this is frowned upon? cause to do otherwise lacks compassion. sorta like networking business partners, thus locking everyone out that you don't agree with politically or religiously.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: undo

So, we're now bridging from discussion of a specific legal case to the general philosophy of politics? LOL I'd be glad to go with you if you want to start a thread, but that's off-topic in this one, I'd think.

It's obvious from the assumptions inherent in your statements that you're of a libertarian mindset in general, which is an ideology I could agree with in many ways ... except that it's as idealistic and utopian not to mention as impossible as a pure communism or capitalism.

Here's why: Humans act in their own, perceived, short-term self-interest.

They do not act morally, ethically, justly, unless it is in their direct and immediate concern to do so. They do not cooperate in any long-term way except to acquire that which they cannot get on their own. Compassion and group-loyalty are aspects of very small family and tribal groups, and even these are clearly structured along the lines of the most dominant individuals.

The only effective human political system is a mixed one, that involves both personal freedom and central control, hopefully in equal measure.

PS: Are you really suggesting that a law that prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation is a "bad law"?
edit on 16Thu, 05 Jun 2014 16:17:38 -050014p042014666 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

i don't think anything short of jesus himself, could have a centrally controlled government that actually didn't decay into an orwellian nightmare



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: begoodbees
a reply to: Gryphon66
There have been many real and unbiased studies done on the subject that support my assertions.


Good. Quote a few peer-reviewed, scientifically based studies that support your assertion(s) and I will make a heart-felt public apology to you. The fact you want to prove is that homosexual orientation is learned not innate.

I'll be glad to review your material.


I didn't bother digging any up because you will not apologize, you will incoherently attack the websites and the scientists and anything else that does not agree with you. It would be an exercise in futility.

Besides you have already done well to promote the assertions in my first post.

Identical twins, one being gay and the other not (this has been studied) is proof enough that it is not something one is born with. Being Identical genetically if your assertion was correct and environment/education/life experience plays no role both twins would be straight or gay, not one of each.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
According to the story here is the reason for this:

“The commission affirmed a civil court’s ruling that the bakery cannot discriminate against persons in a public place based on “sexual orientation.”

Now this scenario is not being facetious…

This guy was forced to do this because of “discriminating against ones sexual orientation”

What if a couple with whips, chains, handcuffs, and spikes on went into that store?

What if these folks wanted a rendition of being whipped or whip someone else on a cake?

That’s a sexual orientation. Would religious people be forced to make that cake?

To whip someone is not against the law, or millions of parents would be in jail.

It’s a sexual orientation in regard to S&M people, right? As long as they don’t whip you to death.

You see my point?

Though I am all for equal rights within the boundaries of fairness and justice one doesn’t have to humiliate one person in order to give another justice as this ruling is doing, imo.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: undo

I don't see any generic evidence for your statement being universally, personally, with some noted historical exceptions of course. I would say that most of the Western democracies have done a fair job (perhaps until recently) of striking a fair balance between personal freedom and administered control. (Of note, I'm not as horrified by the NSA "listening in" as many of you are, so I am clear that this is a matter of opinion.)

There have been other states that were more focused on central control that accomplished a great deal that eventually benefited the individual populace ... while certainly exacting a considerable human cost along the way.

However, "Orwellian Nightmare" carries a lot of baggage; can you provide examples?


edit on 16Thu, 05 Jun 2014 16:30:07 -050014p042014666 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

The requested cake was a wedding cake, which the baker did make.

The couple did not ask that their sexual acts be captured in pastry; they asked for a wedding cake like every other wedding cake customer that the baker had previously served ... including two dogs.

The comparison is woefully inaccurate.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
i think it can be either/or on the genetic thing. for example, during the grecian empire, the greeks had a male pederastic society, which basically means, they were mostly gay pedophiles, no i'm not kidding. however, it was because they had such little respect for women and such esteem for the male physique, which they felt was the epitome of beauty. you can't make this stuff up. they killed their female children at birth, to the point their society was almost totally devoid of women. then rome kicked their ass cause they ran out of soldiers to run their empire.
edit on 5-6-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
i think it can be either/or on the genetic thing. for example, during the grecian empire, the greeks had a male pederastic society, which basically means, they were mostly gay pedophiles, no i'm not kidding. however, it was because they had such little respect for women and such esteem for the male physique, which they felt was the epitome of beauty. you can't make this stuff up. they killed their female children at birth, to the point their society was almost totally devoid of women. then rome kicked their ass cause they ran out of soldiers to run their empire.


That's just a gross oversimplification of a thousand years of Greek history, and I don't mean disrespect, per se, in saying that. Besides that, are you suggesting that the Romans didn't enjoy homosexual relations as well?

If so, you need to re-hit the history books.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Gryphon66

i don't think anything short of jesus himself, could have a centrally controlled government that actually didn't decay into an orwellian nightmare


History seems to agree with you. Centralized power over a large populace always seems to leads to corruption and eventual tyranny followed by the eventual revolution.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
IMO since the mid 90's the net has basically forced each individual to realize that there are "other people" - and we hate it. This place is turning into a friggin' mad house simply because the world isn't turning backwards. It's actually getting scary the way people are foaming at the mouth about everything now. I wish I had the money and opportunity to move far away from here. :\

It's all I can do just to NOT be so connected anymore - I think the net has become a sort of blessing/curse. It's getting downright weird now.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
The romans also enjoyed filleting and other various techniques of torturing people they didn't like. They are a good example of what not to be as a society. Unfortunately we are following in their footsteps. Bread and circus anyone?



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: begoodbees

No ... no evidence then? Not even one?

Why would you think I wouldn't stand on my promise to apologize? Because I don't agree with your (apparently) baseless assertions? Because the only "proof" you have comes from Christian-based opinion sites?

One gay and one straight twin proves something? Good lord, what does one female and one male twin prove, then???

Skip it.

Fair enough. You're welcome to your factually unfounded opinion, of course. That's what's great about this country!



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: undo
i think it can be either/or on the genetic thing. for example, during the grecian empire, the greeks had a male pederastic society, which basically means, they were mostly gay pedophiles, no i'm not kidding. however, it was because they had such little respect for women and such esteem for the male physique, which they felt was the epitome of beauty. you can't make this stuff up. they killed their female children at birth, to the point their society was almost totally devoid of women. then rome kicked their ass cause they ran out of soldiers to run their empire.


That's just a gross oversimplification of a thousand years of Greek history, and I don't mean disrespect, per se, in saying that. Besides that, are you suggesting that the Romans didn't enjoy homosexual relations as well?

If so, you need to re-hit the history books.



oh i know all about it. i studied it. rome saw what happened to the greeks, and made it a point to encourage families. greece did not. in fact, the ratio of male to female was horrific. it was worse than in india, where the female children were killed off at birth so the parents didn't have to come up with a dowry (still happens today even though the gov has outlawed it). there were whole villages without females in india. maharajis were the only ones who could afford wives. so it was basically a bunch of male slaves in society, with a handful of pampered females in palaces, who eventually got killed off when invading maharajis would cause the invadee to burn all his women folk on a pyre in the middle of the palace grounds. now it doesn't talk about homosexuality being a big deal, nor pederasty, in hindu society at the time, but it does say it was a big deal in greece, but not with other male adults but with young pubescent boys. weird society.

ran out of soldiers. guess they forgot that women had any value at all.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: begoodbees
a reply to: Gryphon66
The romans also enjoyed filleting and other various techniques of torturing people they didn't like. They are a good example of what not to be as a society. Unfortunately we are following in their footsteps. Bread and circus anyone?


Wow. So, the fact that virtually every Western country bases their legal systems on the Roman one, that the great classics of literature, art, and even science to some degree (specifically in architecture, naval technology, and civil engineering) that have underpinned our educational system for two millenia are Roman, that the Christian Church would not have had the opportunity to spread worldwide except for the influence and power of the Roman Empire ... (well, actually you can put that one on the "Bad List" as far as I'm concerned ... )

I'm not sure what to say in the face of such ... inaccurate simplification ... I'll admit.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join