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: 35
61
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

Exactly: it was a cake for a party.

The who where what when and why are completely irrelevant.




posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I actually can't believe some of the responses of some people in this thread.

So the owner of the bakery is being forced by the Courts to comply with anti-discrimination laws.

All businesses have to comply with those laws and have been for a long time otherwise you would see stores everywhere that have signs saying "We do not serve whites" or "We do not serve blacks" or "We do not serve Christians" or "We do not serve Islamic", etc

These same laws prevent discrimination based on Race, Gender, Religion, Sexual Orientation, people with big noses and red hair, etc



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: DaRAGE

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You cannot break federal law in your employment practices, but no one says you have to do business with anyone... or you would legally have to allow men in your place of business with no shirt, or you would have to rent to someone who has a felony, or numerous other acts of "discrimination" that go on in this country every day.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
I'm sorry, but this really has me disturbed. Right or wrong, whether you agree or not...this man believes in his God. He believes in the words written in the Bible. Heck, he may love God more than his family...God may be more important. Those may be his beliefs. I'm not like that...I don't really even believe in God. But to force a religious man to go against God? Is there anything worse you could do against this person? He may rather die that blatently go against his God...and some people sit there and say...yeah...I don't believe as he does, so force this guy to do it? WOW? Is that where we are?

Like I said...sorry. I'm done.


He is not living in country by law of bible, but by secular law. His bible gives him as well nice instructions how to interact and use slaves, yet he has no right to do this, no matter how much he loves his imaginary father figure up in skies...

Just a idea that someone might love God more then his family gives a shivers and first thing reminds me of is schizophrenic person almost killing his son to prove his love to a god... speaking of witch, should law protect his kids of him performing the same love act to god today?

There is a good reason we have laws, and bible is just scary folk tale book... from this example very clearly not suitable for moral code...



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
He is not living in country by law of bible, but by secular law. His bible gives him as well nice instructions how to interact and use slaves, yet he has no right to do this, no matter how much he loves his imaginary father figure up in skies...


I believe it is call freedom of religion. Ever heard of it or just trying to erase it?


Just a idea that someone might love God more then his family gives a shivers and first thing reminds me of is schizophrenic person almost killing his son to prove his love to a god... speaking of witch, should law protect his kids of him performing the same love act to god today?


So religion means schizophrenic in your opinion. Good for you. I don't believe in God but I respect people's beliefs because it is right, the law and in the constitution. I accept them...you insult them. I'm 49...I'm guessing your about 10?


There is a good reason we have laws, and bible is just scary folk tale book... from this example very clearly not suitable for moral code...


Yup...laws are good. You got that one right. But laws are only part of freedom and another part is religion, happiness, etc. Do you also insult the Muslim Koran? Or is that religion not schizophrenic? Just trying to see how your twisted idea of who deserves all their freedoms works. Maybe not me either since I'm from the "right". Gotta believe you are hardcore "left". Those guys only want their beliefs to be protected. Did I get that right?



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
PS: I'm guessing name calling is next. Save your time...I'm off to work.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pinke

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.


If you want to discuss other posts, please quote them.


originally posted by: Pinke
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.


How was he breaking a law by refusing to support an illegal wedding? No one has explained that one yet.


originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
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.


His religion is Christianity, which doesn't support homosexual marriage. Baking a cake for such a wedding is against his religious beliefs, and forcing him to do so violates his Constitutional rights.


originally posted by: Pinke
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 haven't heard about that one. Are they searching shopping bags before taking a passenger? It seems unlikely one would carry alcohol loose in a cab. That seems very extreme. I don't like it, either.


originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
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 Christian baker's business could be hurt as well, if his other customers don't like what he's supporting. Plus, this is about his religious belief, which is protected. zIt doesn't have to hurt his business to be wrong.


originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
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.


That they do, and I believe that is the intent in such cases.


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


Normally, I would agree, but a wedding cake involves a degree of participation in the event, which in this case is against his religious beliefs.


originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyesphotographers 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 agree with your reason to be against it. That's the point; the photographer or baker IS a part of the event in such cases. I'd have to look up details on your story to comment there. Sounds a bit odd. Assuming you were decent, I am sure my church wouldn't care.

(cont)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   
(part two)

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
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.


To some, yes, but not to others. If I opened one, and lived in it, my kids would be there. Having a homosexual couple staying there would go against everything we believe. I wouldn't allow it, either. Exceptions could be made for that, and should be allowed, and advertised up front.


originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
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.


Did you run the company in those cases? If you run a company, and some request is against your religious beliefs, you should have a right to turn it down. The cab drivers you mentioned above don't run the company, in most of those cases, and are likely employees of a big cab company, so they shouldn't be able to refuse. If they owned their own cab, they should have the right to refuse a customer. They'd lose business, and hurt their own bottom line.


originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
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.


You are consistent, and courteous, which is good, and often too rare in these discussions.


Weddings are supposed to be special. The baker that doesn't care, or doesn't state he cares, isn't an issue. One that does care, and is forced into the job, though; that's a different matter. I could see such a person really being angry, and delivering the cake angry and spoiling the mood. I think it would make more sense if people got someone happy to do the work for them.

I agree the government is a huge pain in the butt over these issues. Any time they get involved in things that aren't their business, it goes bad. When any group starts gaining some special status, it['s bad for everyone else. It's also a bad precedent to set. This idea of regulating who is and isn't offended is simply bizarre. It can't possible end well.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
If you walk into a business that offers a certain product to the public, that business is required to sell you that product. Why you want the product is a none issue.

You can not deny a product because of personal belief (some areas are currently trying to enact laws that do allow discrimination because of belief - that is not the case in Colorado).

He solved his personal issue by no longer offering a certain product to anyone.

This is not complicated.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
I believe it is call freedom of religion. Ever heard of it or just trying to erase it?

You got it wrong, this is not freedom of religion, but discrimination based on religious belief.
Sure, he can express his religion and religious belief in church, home, park... anywhere, but as professional baker he should not use that as base of his discrimination.


originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
So religion means schizophrenic in your opinion. Good for you. I don't believe in God but I respect people's beliefs because it is right, the law and in the constitution. I accept them...you insult them. I'm 49...I'm guessing your about 10?

Where I said all religious people are schizophrenic? I am just giving an example what by today medical standards would be called schizophrenia (hearing voices in your head, and acting on them)...


originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Yup...laws are good. You got that one right. But laws are only part of freedom and another part is religion, happiness, etc. Do you also insult the Muslim Koran? Or is that religion not schizophrenic? Just trying to see how your twisted idea of who deserves all their freedoms works. Maybe not me either since I'm from the "right". Gotta believe you are hardcore "left". Those guys only want their beliefs to be protected. Did I get that right?

Again, you got it wrong... Muslim that will follow Qur'an and for example marry kid who is 6 - sure I think that person is not schizophrenic, but pedophile. Your religion CAN NOT give you rights to DISCRIMINATE or in any other form SUBJUGATE someone because that is what your religion allows you.

As for name calling, that is mostly done by believers... from calling us Satanist to all other things... still much better, as we used to be hunt by those who followed religion and killed, as both books (I have read both Qur'an and Bible) give clear instruction what to do with non-believer.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Christian Voice

You can believe what you want. You just arent allowed to discriminate based on age, sex, race or sexual preference. There are and have been laws against that for years. Perhaps youd enjoy bringing back the old jim crow laws...



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: nixie_nox

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.


"Hate speech" is neither illegal and is protected by the Constitution.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: crawley
a reply to: Christian Voice

You can believe what you want. You just arent allowed to discriminate based on age, sex, race or sexual preference. There are and have been laws against that for years. Perhaps youd enjoy bringing back the old jim crow laws...



They would never make this gay couple go set in this mans church for one Sunday and listen to a sermon. Would be part of a more well rounded sensitivity training. Not that Jim Crow wanted to go eat cake at a KKK rally or anything mind you. LOL



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: DaRAGE

Gay marriage is fairly new and so are the choices Christian business owners now have to contend with. If you have it your way, Christians will no longer be able to operate businesses that have anything to do with weddings. We're talking about one the biggest industries in the country that just so happens to have been BUILT BY CHRISTIANS.


edit on b20146America/Chicago75 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: DaRAGE

Gay marriage is fairly new and so are the choices Christian business owners now have to contend with. If you have it your way, Christians will no longer be able to operate businesses that have anything to weddings. We're talking about one the biggest industries in the country that just so happens to have been BUILT BY CHRISTIANS.



Well yes. A progressive wants to destroy anyone who does not toe the line.


I think that there is a lot of hypocrites--discrimination is bad unless it is affirmative action in which case it is good. Speech must be protected unless we call it "hate speech" in which case it should be illegal.


Nobody seems to want to leave people alone to do their own thing.
edit on 6-6-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

And when and where did Jesus preach that in order to do such things, taxes must be collected from the people?

I love it when you try to get the Christianity bashing thing going, but you really are not that good at it.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Not taking sides here but we can see this major conundrum really about making no law establishing religion and the free exercise there of and the state dictating religious convictions as it effects the free exercise thereof/conflicts in personal and societal interaction.

In my opinion the only fair thing to do in this case is for the courts to demand that the gay couple respect this cake makers religious convictions and do business with an accommodating cake manufacturer. Its not like they are trying to break a monopoly here. The gays don't have cause to demand based on lack of opportunity. There is no cake makers apartheid movement. Commerce is not being restricted at large by boycott. As they say in civil court there is "no loss".

The real ice on this cake is the sensitivity training. This is clear overreach by the court. If they wanted to rule that the cake must be made they should have left it at that. The court has no right to make this guy take sensitivity training.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock


Not taking sides here but we can see this major conundrum really about making no law establishing religion and the free exercise there of and the state dictating religious convictions as it effects the free exercise thereof/conflicts in personal and societal interaction.

In my opinion the only fair thing to do in this case is for the courts to demand that the gay couple respect this cake makers religious convictions and do business with an accommodating cake manufacturer. Its not like they are trying to break a monopoly here. The gays don't have cause to demand based on lack of opportunity. There is no cake makers apartheid movement. Commerce is not being restricted at large by boycott. As they say in civil court there is "no loss".

The real ice on this cake is the sensitivity training. This is clear overreach by the court. If they wanted to rule that the cake must be made they should have left it at that. The court has no right to make this guy take sensitivity training.



You are quite right. In the end, they did exactly what they should have done in the first place--go somewhere else and had their cake made and gave their business to someone who appreciated it.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I have an idea... Christian themed wedding cakes. Adorned with crosses, topped with a bride and a groom, and inscribed with Congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. So and So. Customizations are limited to colors, structure and certain styling elements, but no cake leaves the shop without the Christian elements.

Problem solved for the baker, but florists, photographers, tailors, caterers, reception halls, and limousines services are still screwed.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75
I have an idea... Christian themed wedding cake.


Gays are people, just like everyone else.

There are many gay Christians. Many gays want to be married in their church.

Many churches of all denominations welcome their gay perishioners.

I'd say the majority of Christians now understand homosexuality is an inherent birthright.

NOM tried to import anti-gay Christians in Oregon to stop gay marriage, because they couldn't get enough local Christians.

I doubt you could get enough local Christians to support this extremist Christian baker.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join