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: 4
61
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



It should go both ways ... but it doesn't. One side is now forcing the other to comply.

And when it comes to this, the issue isn't about not serving people because of behaviors they engage in. If it was, they wouldn't serve gays at all. It's about not participating in something that would be a sin for them. They likely don't care one way or the other what the gays are doing, but they don't want to do what they consider a sin to participate in it.


Please explain how making a wedding cake for a gay couple is a sin? The issue is ENTIRELY about not serving people because of who they are.

It's pretty disturbing to see anyone rushing to support this cake baking bigot. Who believes racial segregation would have ended without anti-discrimination laws? Allowing this business to discriminate based on sexual orientation is precisely the same thing. The baker is not a proponent of religious freedom, he's a promoter of sexuality-based segregation.



Is this the kind of signs we want to see hanging in businesses?
edit on 2014-6-3 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Independent business policies DO NOT trump state or federal law.

Religious beliefs DO NOT trump state or federal law.

Freedom to be an idiot DOES NOT trump state or federal law.


Any hyperbolic soap boxing outside of those above three simple facts, are completely moot.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The baker didn't refuse because of who they are. He refused because he felt he would be promoting gay marriage which goes against his belief. He offered to make any other kinds of cakes, just not the wedding cake.



The controversy started in 2012 when a gay couple asked Phillips to make their wedding cake. Phillips politely declined, saying he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. He offered to make them any other baked item they wanted.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

Javol mein Fuhrer!


edit on 3-6-2014 by Ollie769 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ollie769
a reply to: CranialSponge

Javol mein Fuhrer!



You're soap boxing about something that has absolutely nothing to do with Colorado state law.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Ollie769


Using the good old nazy does not work anymore, well unless you are a nazy, epic fail.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Please explain how making a wedding cake for a gay couple is a sin? The issue is ENTIRELY about not serving people because of who they are.


The man does not refuse to serve gay people. He refuses to bake cakes for gay weddings. There is a HUGE difference that atheists and homosexuals will never come to grips with so I'm not going to bother trying to explain to you why its a sin when you don't even believe in the concept of sin to begin with.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

No we get it, its bigotry which is not my issue, i could not care less what people think or do, im also againts a judge forcing the man to bake the cake.

My issue with your post is yea we dont need to believe in santa claus to understand why religious people use the bible to protect there rights to discriminate, we get it.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Independent business policies DO NOT trump state or federal law.

Religious beliefs DO NOT trump state or federal law.

Freedom to be an idiot DOES NOT trump state or federal law.


Any hyperbolic soap boxing outside of those above three simple facts, are completely moot.


COMPLY




posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge

Independent business policies DO NOT trump state or federal law.

Religious beliefs DO NOT trump state or federal law.

Freedom to be an idiot DOES NOT trump state or federal law.

Any hyperbolic soap boxing outside of those above three simple facts, are completely moot.


Same sex marriage is illegal in Colorado. So which law is being trumped in this case? Should I be forced to sell a crackhead a chore boy?



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
If I committed a crime and had a choice of baking a cake or serving some prison time... I'd bake the cake with a frickin' Fozzy Bear smile on face just for good measure.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75




Same sex marriage is illegal in Colorado. So which law is being trumped in this case?


Obviously the discrimination law is trumping.



Should I be forced to sell a crackhead a chore boy?


What does a crackhead and a chore boy have to do with this case ?



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I don't think this person should be forced to make the cake, but I can at least conceive of how a legal argument might be made in this direction.

What I REALLY find objectionable is the forced "sensitivity training." For Ing somebody to provide a good or service is bad enough but saying they need to be mentally changed by the government is the kind of brainwashing one associates with Maoist China or North Korea. What is the legal basis for forcing this person to undergo some kind of government mental indoctrination?



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Please explain how making a wedding cake for a gay couple is a sin? The issue is ENTIRELY about not serving people because of who they are.


The man does not refuse to serve gay people. He refuses to bake cakes for gay weddings. There is a HUGE difference that atheists and homosexuals will never come to grips with so I'm not going to bother trying to explain to you why its a sin when you don't even believe in the concept of sin to begin with.


Refusing to bake a cake for gay weddings is refusing to serve gays. Also as I posted earlier it is not against the Christian faith to do business with gays. He is using his faith as a cover for his personal discrimination against gays getting married.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

The baker did NOT discriminate against gay couple. He did not want to make the wedding cake for SAME-SEX CEREMONY as it goes against his belief (he felt he would be promoting it) He OFFERED to make other kinds of cake.

As to Bone75's point, gay marriage and crack are illegal in Colorado so should the baker be forced to support what is illegal?
edit on 6/3/2014 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Never Despise

Comrade Citizen, they need their reeducation when they offend the body and state to such egregious levels.

It's just the way of the new world.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: theantediluvian

The baker didn't refuse because of who they are. He refused because he felt he would be promoting gay marriage which goes against his belief. He offered to make any other kinds of cakes, just not the wedding cake.



The controversy started in 2012 when a gay couple asked Phillips to make their wedding cake. Phillips politely declined, saying he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. He offered to make them any other baked item they wanted.


Right. Because gay people won't get married if there are no wedding cakes. I guess tuxedo shops and dress makers should refuse to provide service to gay people on the off chance that the product they purchased might be used in a gay wedding.

It's blatant discrimination. The only reason anyone is pretending that it's not is because he's throwing religion into the mix.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Never Despise
I don't think this person should be forced to make the cake, but I can at least conceive of how a legal argument might be made in this direction.

What I REALLY find objectionable is the forced "sensitivity training." For Ing somebody to provide a good or service is bad enough but saying they need to be mentally changed by the government is the kind of brainwashing one associates with Maoist China or North Korea. What is the legal basis for forcing this person to undergo some kind of government mental indoctrination?


For the same reason that a drunk driver is forced to undergo some type of alcohol treatment program... it's a part of the punishment for committing a crime in an attempt to aid the criminal to not commit the same crime again.

If someone commits a crime, you don't slap them on the wrist and send them on their way.

You issue a form of punishment that supports the idea of "deterrence".



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

So why doesn't the discrimination law work both ways? Are they not doing the same to his beliefs?


"The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."

The above quote came from Bill Maher talking about the gay mafia bullying people who don't agree with them.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

But the problem here is that the baker didn't discriminate against the gay couple as I have stated a few times here.




top topics



 
61
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join