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: 5
61
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

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.


No Buster, hanging a sign on the door that says "No Gays Allowed" is refusing to do business with gays.




posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
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.


So forcing someone against their will to perform a service is acceptable?



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: CranialSponge
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.


So forcing someone against their will to perform a service is acceptable?


He has the right to bake wedding cakes for everyone

OR

He has the right to not bake wedding cakes for everyone.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010





Also as I posted earlier it is not against the Christian faith to do business with gays


Who the hell are you? What gives you the right to determine what someone's faith is for or against? Seems to me that the moment you do it becomes your version of their faith rather than theirs. You don't get to do that in the U.S.

Show a compelling reason for why the government should infringe upon a the bakers right to exercise his religion as he sees fit. Absent that, it shouldn't happen.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
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?


Obviously, it wasn't a legitimate "marriage" ceremony.

Therefore, any kind of unofficial couple "ceremonial" cake would not be breaking any laws.

Therefore, the baker wasn't being forced to support anything "illegal".

Therefore, the judge saw loud and clear that the baker willfully broke the law by way of discrimination under the guise of religious beliefs.

Again, religious beliefs DO NOT trump state or federal laws.

You can freely walk around being a bigot practicing your right to free speech and there's not a damn thing the courts can do to you in the legal sense.... but if you step over the line and break the law in a state that enforces discrimination laws, then you have to accept the consequences.

That fine line is difficult to distinguish. But in this particular case because it was a place of business, the discrimination laws are laid out in black and white. You cannot refuse service to anyone based on race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation.

Plain and simple.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: CranialSponge
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.


So forcing someone against their will to perform a service is acceptable?


He has the right to bake wedding cakes for everyone

OR

He has the right to not bake wedding cakes for everyone.


So you are for forcing someone to do something against their "free" will.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

As Bone75 has remarked... gay marriage is illegal in Colorado so the point is kinda moot.

Who knows what the baker would have done if gay marriage was legal.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge



You cannot refuse service to anyone based on race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation.


That's the thing. He did not refuse service to them because of their sexual orientation. He refused because of the same-sex ceremony. See the problem here?



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: CranialSponge
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.


So forcing someone against their will to perform a service is acceptable?


How is enforcing the law suddenly "forcing someone against their will" ??

Do you follow the speed limit ?
Do you pay your taxes ?
Do you wear your seat belt ?
Do you not drink and drive ?

Is the world forcing you against your will with all the crazy laws out there ?

Why is the discrimination law considered "forcing someone against their will" ?

Should we not force all business to serve black people and women ?

Where are you drawing the line ? Or are you jumping up and down on your soapbox because this guy threw his religion into the mix in an attempt to bypass a law he doesn't agree with ?


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I wonder if I can force a Muslim run eatery to serve me pork.
Wonder how that would turn out.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge




Again, religious beliefs DO NOT trump state or federal laws.


The first amendment guarantees the right to the free exercise of religion. Common sense dictates that this "free exercise of religion" isn't without limits. However, common sense also dictates that in order to infringe upon the free exercise of religion, the reason for doing so needs to be compelling.

At worst, not being able to get a wedding cake from a specific baker is nothing but an inconvenience. Hardly worthy of infringing on the clearly stated right to free exercise of religion.

The courts and legislatures that say otherwise have gotten it wrong and are in violation of the clear sense/meaning of the First Amendment.


edit on 3-6-2014 by imwilliam because: spellin



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
I wonder if I can force a Muslim run eatery to serve me pork.
Wonder how that would turn out.


Only if it's on the menu for everyone.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: CranialSponge



You cannot refuse service to anyone based on race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation.


That's the thing. He did not refuse service to them because of their sexual orientation. He refused because of the same-sex ceremony. See the problem here?


That's right.

He refused service because of a same-sex ceremony (a legal non-law breaking legit coupling ceremony). He does not refuse to bake a cake for opposite-sex ceremonies. In fact, he would have to refuse to bake cakes for any and all types of couple ceremonies in order for him to get away with "not discriminating" against any particular group of people.

And since he does bake cakes for any other types of "couple ceremonies", he broke Colorado state law by way of discriminating against one particular group of peoples vs everybody else that he caters to.

In the state of Texas, your business can discriminate all it wants... but in the state of Colorado, apparently you cannot.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:11 PM
link   
keyboard error

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



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

The point here is that the baker did not discriminate the gay couple. So he did not break any law doing so.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

So it is fine to force someone against their will to perform a service.

M'kay.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer




keyboard error


lol . . . I thought maybe the little bunny had hit the sauce a little too hard.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I don't care, it's a restaurant and I want pork. I know that I can go around the corner to a different restaurant that sells pork and has no problem selling me pork even but I want to go out of my way and have these people make it for me because their beliefs do not matter to me.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   
At the end of the day, just because you don't agree with a law (for whatever reason) does not give you a free pass to break said law.

If you break a law, you will get punished.

If this business owner does not agree with this law, then it's up to him to rally together as many people as possible to try to get the law repealed. Citizens have the freedom and right to do so.

But until such time, you have no choice but to abide by that law.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge


We'll unfortunately the bullies won and now the only thing the baker can do is stop selling wedding cakes unless they force him to continue.

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




top topics



 
61
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join