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: 33
61
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee



My personal view is denying someone the basic right of legal marriage is homophobic.


As I have said... (believe it or not this does happen)

People DO TRY to deny straight people of their marriages for various reasons.

What you just told me is basically like this:

"My personal view is denying a straight person the basic right of legal marriage is heterophobic."




posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: buster2010



Whether the person is straight or not is irrelevant. He would deny it simply because he said that same sex marriage is against his faith. A business in Colorado cannot use faith as a reason to deny service to a person because it is discrimination.


What???? How do you make that into a discrimination?

Ok, what if a KKK member comes in and requests a cake for KKK wedding? What then? Must he be FORCED to make for them? Must he be forced to take sensitivity classes to understand KKK's ways?



I have already covered this.

It depends on what cake they want. If they want a cake with a burning cross on it, not the baker does not have too because that is hate speech and that is not only illegal but is not protected by the Constitution.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I hate to bust your bubble but if you start doing services with the public, you are subject to Federal laws. Federal laws prevent any business from conducting discrimination.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

if the baker has a problem servicing certain portions of the population, than he should not have become a public business.

He can make cakes for his Christian friends from his house.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: nixie_nox



It depends on what cake they want. If they want a cake with a burning cross on it, not the baker does not have too because that is hate speech and that is not only illegal but is not protected by the Constitution.


I never said anything about the burning cross. I was talking about simple wedding cake.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Aedaeum

It is always funny when one screams about freedom when someone denies someone else a service. Apparently freedom is only one side of the coin for you.

Where exactly in the bible does it say that you can't do business with gay people?



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

He can still deny making anything for them because they are not a protected class.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: nixie_nox

Correct. Like me and others have stated many times already... its ALL or NOTHING for everyone.

I come in his bakery (I am straight) and I'm like hey baker can you make a wedding cake for my friend who is gay?

Will he make the cake for me because I am straight?



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
The point is that the state in extreme cases can stop religious EXTREMISTS, as interpreted by a particular sect.

Modern secular law has determined that gay marriage is conventional and okay, not outside of the mainstream of society’s norms, AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN 30 YEARS AGO.


BUT SOME RELIGIOUS PEOPLE DON’T AGREE.

They have a thousand plus year old tradition that the modern secularist doesn’t want to respect.

Past about 30 or 40 years ago gay marriage would have been in the same category as religious extremism.

The society has developed this new paradigm, BUT SOME RELIGIOUS PEOPLE DON’T GO ALONG WITH THIS.

Should they be just ignored?

This is a tough question. One has to keep the context of religious and secular societies NORMS AND CHANGES.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnFisher

If you do not want to do business with certain portions of the population, than you shouldn't be performing services for the public.

IF you want to do public business, than you need to adhere to the Civil Rights Act and local and state laws.

If he wanted to be a bigot, which he is, and use his religion as an excuse to discriminate, he should of made a deal with his church and only bake in the church for weddings that are performed there. But he didn't.

Colorado has a law preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation.

He broke the law. Period.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

In Colorado, he has to make the cake for you whether you are straight or gay. Doesn't matter. He can't discriminate based on sexual orientation.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: nixie_nox

Gosh you do not understand do you?

The baker NEVER denied them service. NEVER discriminated them.

Why is that so hard for you or anyone else to understand?

You and others keep calling him a bigot. Maybe he is privately BUT IN THIS CASE he wasn't!

And for the record I am not against same-sex marriage.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: nixie_nox



In Colorado, he has to make the cake for you whether you are straight or gay. Doesn't matter. He can't discriminate based on sexual orientation.


How in the world did he discriminate them based on sexual orientation?

If the baker saw gay people coming in his bakery and he told them to leave because they're gay, then YES thats discrimination.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   
This thread discussion makes me want to stick a Sterling Silver Cake Server in my eye.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: nixie_nox
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I hate to bust your bubble but if you start doing services with the public, you are subject to Federal laws. Federal laws prevent any business from conducting discrimination.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

if the baker has a problem servicing certain portions of the population, than he should not have become a public business.

He can make cakes for his Christian friends from his house.



Hate to burst your bubble, but freedom of religion is protected. No court should be able to force someone to participate in a wedding which goes against their religious beliefs. Not baking a cake for an illegal "gay wedding" isn't discrimination, either; it's obeying the law. All of the people defending what this judge did seem to overlook that fact.

Homosexuality isn't race, color, religion, or national origin. It's behavior. Claiming behavior is a "protected class" is a dangerous road to take. Where do we draw the line?

If those people want to have an illegal wedding, they should make their own cake, and not demand someone violate their religious beliefs to do it for them, and participate in something that isn't even legal in that state.

Let them find a gay baker.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
I can't believe this thread is up to 30+ pages with back and forth bickering and it truly shows just how silly our society can still behave. People used to have "whites only" signs on their places of business and that was ruled to be illegal and discriminatory just as not serving someone because they are gay. Business owners should be allowed to refuse services based on certain things like, "no shirt, no shoes, no service" or for acting disruptive but never for discrimination.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I believe the baker never refused to serve the couple. They offered to make something else, but they refused to make a wedding cake. I just remembered a case decades back, when a fancy jeweler, like Tiffany or Cartier or something, refused to sell a gay man a single earring and the guy sued. They would have been glad to sell him the pair so they didn't refuse to serve him at all, but they were forced to break up a set anyway (if my memory serves me).
a reply to: Kali74



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: nixie_nox

Stop cherry picking the issue and blowing everything out of proportion. The baker did NOT deny service to the gay people, he simply would not make a wedding cake for them. Seriously... How many different ways do you have to hear it until it sinks in? He said he would make ANY other baked goods for them.... This is not "I don't like gay people so I'm not going to make them a cake" this is "I don't support gay weddings". If you can't understand that incredibly obvious and simple distinction, then we're all screwed.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Really? So no one ever protested when homosexuals were told their behavior could be changed by therapy? I seem to recall a lot of protest over that. How is that wrong, and this right?

I seem to have misquoted, mostly I was referring to the generalisations in some of your previous post and that not every gay person has the same opinions.

As I've said already, I think the 'sensitivity training' is trollish. It's a legal issue really, and I don't believe the baker knew he was breaking any laws. If anything, legal training in public accommodation laws would be more appropriate.


The baker didn't refuse to make anything for them; he simply stated he couldn't make a wedding cake for them, because that would make him a participant in something that is against his religious beliefs.

I certainly understand the distinction, but it opens up a myriad of other issues such as refusing to sell timber to build a religious sculpture one might consider idolatry along with secular examples we've already heard etc etc etc ... By itself, it's mostly harmless but there is a precedent that could be set here allowing the law to be further challenged.


Services, sure. Services specifically supporting an event that is against one's religion? That's where I draw the line.

That's the thing, what is a religion? It's a belief in what is right and wrong in many instances. There are a lot of things I believe are wrong, but I still provide services for them. Abortion pills I can see the case for not forcing persons to provide them. Line has to be drawn though.

What do you think of the Muslim taxi driver stuff in New York btw? Muslims are allowed to decline transporting alcohol regardless of passenger sobriety if my brain is right. Personally I don't like the idea, seems a bit like applying someone else's morality to other people.


I wouldn't expect a gay bar to host a Bible study, either.

A gay bar has a business interest in not hosting a bible study since the business (not the owner's feelings) would be negatively damaged by that act. A similar real life example would be that time when gay activists were excluded from a public parade because they didn't support / represent the message of the proposed event. They (correctly) lost in court.

A better comparative example would be a hotel owned by a gay or religious person. It's not in the hotel's best interests to turn away guests, the hotel isn't based around a specific clientele, the hotel isn't promoting a specific message like an event - it would be discrimination to refuse either person hosting rights to a publically rented space for bible or navel studying purposes unless there was a legitimate business interest to do so.


Being respectful of one another means we have to respect beliefs, too, and not demand that everyone agree with us.

Can't actually speak for the gay couple. Honestly, yes they could have been disrespectful activist types. There are a lot of hurt feelings on all sides, and yes people deliberately go out of their way to poop on people's day.

On the other hand, as I've said, I don't consider me providing a service to be agreeing with anyone.


I have heard of many other similar lawsuits.

I can't find the source but apparently there have been around five in Colorado, but they're getting a lot of publicity. It's a bit like mass shootings, some people copy the behaviour when they see it unfortunately.


Other bakers told they had to bake wedding cakes for homosexual weddings

Yes, there was at least one other incident in international media which I think isn't the best for anyone. As above, just causes moral outrage internationally. Some people in my country discuss it like they get oppressed by gay and religious people every day - it is nonsense! Haha


photographers told they had to take photos at such a wedding,

This one! I actually find this one sincerely conflicting contrary to my allegedly massive leftist reputation.

I do media work myself, and I've edited and worked as crew on religious productions. Its been challenging once or twice, there is a story on ATS somewhere about me working for a church where they basically tried to have me fired because I looked unChristian I guess. They eventually settled for holding hands and praying for me which was odd.

For it: it was specifically a wedding photography company, and it's in the company's interests to take wedding photos. It would absolutely be no different from using beliefs to be against other types of weddings. They weren't being asked to shoot something utterly obscene or anything. Taking the photos seemingly wouldn't have caused undue to harm to the business entity.

Against it: actually attending an event can be a little more challenging, and I'm torn about photography on the basis it is art and a form of speech to an extent though its borderline.

I'm not saying this from a point of ignorance, that church I worked at was anti-leather jackets nevermind anti-homosexual. I've lived this example.

The other church people there were nice to me though, and one or two even apologised to me.


bed & breakfast owners told they had to accept homosexual couples, even when the B&B is in their HOME.

I actually can't fault this one from a legal stand point unless I'm missing something. It's advertised as a B&B, it's a B&B. I'd feel the same if I turned my own home into a B&B and rented it out. Where is the business interest in rejecting custom? Room mates is different, B&B is business.


That's forcing someone to accept beliefs as much as is the 'sensitivity training".

I differ on this. For me it's a standing agreement to provide each other services. When I was doing that work we had some artistic license, but there were some generic services we offered ergo we had to offer them to everyone.

As an example, we couldn't turn down script supervision or cable bashing work. Is nothing much artistic or speech related about those things, so we just did it no question asked. There were often several atheists and even anti-theists in those crews.


I honestly can't understand why someone would want a baker of photographer helping with their wedding that thought the wedding was wrong, anyway.

Sure, to a point. It's meant to be magical and you know of all the events in your life its right up there with the funeral.

On the other hand, I'm sure there are funeral staff that don't care, and catering staff that think the couple should never reproduce if it was up to them. When you work events sometimes you just have to remind yourself you're in other people's space and nike it.

I do understand religious persons points about this, and sure some persons are hypocritical on both sides. We're all pretty much afraid of the same things apparently, some massive slippery slope developing where the government is a pain the butt.

Hopefully I'm fairly consistent and not crazy but I guess I could be.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
He wouldn't sell them a cake he sells to other customers because GAY was involved.

That's discrimination.

I don't care if they were ordering a cake for their straight friends wedding.




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



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   



The fact that he was ruled against in a lawsuit would seem to indicate that having rights is undeniable, but Americans can now be held legally accountable for exercising their rights. Seems a bit unconstitutional, no? What good are rights if they cannot be freely exercised?


This is the situation as I see it as well. By attempting to not discriminate against this gay couple the baker is having his rights violated. Personal discrimination or personal belief is not something that one can change in another. Laws can be passed for certain things, but this should not be one of those things. I guess what I mean is that equality is something established legally via the government, but as long as someone doesn't violate someone else's rights or break the law, they should not be discriminated against for their own beliefs. Rights are something that are established by law, as is equality. A proprietor cannot be forced to serve anyone if they choose not to, considering there is no law saying they must, as long as the service being offered is not considered essential, if I remember correctly. A cake is definitely not considered essential.
What I mean is that I believe there are certain types of businesses that are not allowed to refuse service based on something like this, but I might be wrong. A baker definitely would not fall into this category in my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join