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.

 

Christian Complaint that Baker Refuses to Decorate Cake with Anti-Gay Message

page: 2
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views. The other guy wasn't allowed to do that.

The customer here was trying to get the baker to decorate a cake in a manner that is obviously offensive to the baker personally. For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.



Nope. Not the same thing. For example, a baker could decide that they won't make a cake that looks like a penis. They won't do it for ANYONE - not for a group of heterosexual women having a bachelorette party, nor for a group of gays.
If the baker agreed to do a penis cake for the heterosexual women, but not do the exact same cake for the gays - THAT is being discriminatory.

This baker won't decorate a cake with an anti-gay message for ANYONE - not for a Jew, not for a Christian, not for an atheist - no one. That is not discriminatory.

Well we don't have to go hypothetical here because we know the specifics of the case. And it is discriminatory in that the baker is not going to tell everyone to take the cake home and write whatever they want on it. Baker would have to not do communicative decorations at all for anyone in order to fall under your definition.




posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Logarock

Bullcrap. In the first case, the gay people were DENIED service. It's not like the bakers made the cake, sold it to them, then made them decorate it with gay themes or anything. They flat out refused to sell them a cake. The bakery in the OP would have sold the cake, even with most of the requests, but wasn't going to be complicit in slandering a group of people. So the bakery gave the person the instructions and icing to decorate it with on how to do it themselves.



Any part of service comes into play here. The guy should get a medal or something because he still offered to make the dam thing? This is like serving blacks out the back door.


making the man a cake, that is part of the services he offers. forcing employees to put hateful and inflammatory messages on their work, that is not part of the services he offers. he cheerfully offered to make a bible cake and allow the customer to be an asshole about it at his own home, but not at a family-friendly facility.

he still offered to make a cake, at the very least. thats more than some cake makers are willing to do. hint hint.
edit on 16-1-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Sorry but it's the same thing as forcing a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding. If you expect Christian bakers to bake your gay wedding cakes then gay bakers better be able to bake Christian cakes for Christians.

Take your hypocrisy and suck it down.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views. The other guy wasn't allowed to do that.

The customer here was trying to get the baker to decorate a cake in a manner that is obviously offensive to the baker personally. For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.



Nope. Not the same thing. For example, a baker could decide that they won't make a cake that looks like a penis. They won't do it for ANYONE - not for a group of heterosexual women having a bachelorette party, nor for a group of gays.
If the baker agreed to do a penis cake for the heterosexual women, but not do the exact same cake for the gays - THAT is being discriminatory.

This baker won't decorate a cake with an anti-gay message for ANYONE - not for a Jew, not for a Christian, not for an atheist - no one. That is not discriminatory.

Well we don't have to go hypothetical here because we know the specifics of the case. And it is discriminatory in that the baker is not going to tell everyone to take the cake home and write whatever they want on it. Baker would have to not do communicative decorations at all for anyone in order to fall under your definition.


so its discrimination against gays vs discrimination against homophobic bigots.

i love where this is going.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Logarock
But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views.


She (the baker) discriminated (nonlegal term) against the decorations, not the person. And she wasn't discriminating (legal term) against the customer based on his religion, which is what I assume he was trying to prove (ineffectively).



For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.


The gay couple didn't ask for two men's names or a figurine of two men.



So its was a matter of conscience for the baker? Based on her world view ect. Wow sounds familiar.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Logarock
But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views.


She (the baker) discriminated (nonlegal term) against the decorations, not the person. And she wasn't discriminating (legal term) against the customer based on his religion, which is what I assume he was trying to prove (ineffectively).



For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.


The gay couple didn't ask for two men's names or a figurine of two men.



So its was a matter of conscience for the baker? Based on her world view ect. Wow sounds familiar.


i am reminded of that whole "the free will of the rapist is more important than the free will of the victim" thing...
edit on 16-1-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
Well we don't have to go hypothetical here because we know the specifics of the case. And it is discriminatory in that the baker is not going to tell everyone to take the cake home and write whatever they want on it. Baker would have to not do communicative decorations at all for anyone in order to fall under your definition.


See this quoted posted.


originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views. The other guy wasn't allowed to do that.

The customer here was trying to get the baker to decorate a cake in a manner that is obviously offensive to the baker personally. For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.



If the baker won't write hate speech for anyone, it is not discriminatory for him not to do it for the man that asked for it.

He wont write anti-homosexual messages.
He wont write anti-christian messages.
He won't write anti-muslim messages.
He won't write anti-democrat messages.
He won't write anti-republican messages.
He won't write anti-dog messages.
He won't write anti-mexican messages.

Not wanting to write hate speech for anyone isn't discriminatory.

The only way this guy has a leg to stand on is if he can find a time when the baker did write some hate speech on a cake. Which I doubt will happen.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans
Sorry but it's the same thing as forcing a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding. If you expect Christian bakers to bake your gay wedding cakes then gay bakers better be able to bake Christian cakes for Christians.

Take your hypocrisy and suck it down.


She WAS going to bake the cake, bible shaped and all. She just wasn't going to be discriminatory towards another group of people at the same time. How do you not see this?
edit on 16-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Did what the man want written on the cake come from the bible? If not then he really can't say that the baker is discriminating against his religion. Just because the Christian faith is against homosexuality doesn't mean you say whatever you want about it and claim it's my religion.
edit on 16-1-2015 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views. The other guy wasn't allowed to do that.

The customer here was trying to get the baker to decorate a cake in a manner that is obviously offensive to the baker personally. For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.



Nope. Not the same thing. For example, a baker could decide that they won't make a cake that looks like a penis. They won't do it for ANYONE - not for a group of heterosexual women having a bachelorette party, nor for a group of gays.
If the baker agreed to do a penis cake for the heterosexual women, but not do the exact same cake for the gays - THAT is being discriminatory.

This baker won't decorate a cake with an anti-gay message for ANYONE - not for a Jew, not for a Christian, not for an atheist - no one. That is not discriminatory.

Well we don't have to go hypothetical here because we know the specifics of the case. And it is discriminatory in that the baker is not going to tell everyone to take the cake home and write whatever they want on it. Baker would have to not do communicative decorations at all for anyone in order to fall under your definition.


so its discrimination against gays vs discrimination against homophobic bigots.

i love where this is going.


Again is it really the bakers place to discriminate against anyone? Her poor conscience was being violated? What ever happened to the old burger slogan "anyway you like it".

So a guy gets trashed because he want to make cakes for heterosexuals only? He has no choice in the matter? But this other baker can blush?



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
T&Cs T&Cs T&Cs T&Cs T&Cs T&Cs T&Cs T&Cs!!!



I must hold my digital tongue...


This shouldn't just be thrown out of Court...

There should be some sort of charge against the Christian who wanted the Hate Speech on the cake...





Saying that, I'd love it if they made the Cake...

Someone at that shoddy wedding would have to eat the word Homosexual!!!


That's the best I can do... Due to T&Cs!!!



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Any way you like it is a privilege that the restaurant extends to the customer so that they can get the meal how they want it. It isn't a guaranteed part of the food ordering process and wasn't even that common until fast food restaurants started doing it.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

i see where you went in your head, that you couldnt put down in your post.




posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock


Again is it really the bakers place to discriminate against anyone?


No the baker can't which is why you should be able to understand that Hate Speech is discriminatory...


May I ask what job you do, maybe if we give you an example of your work and you being asked to promote Hate within that job you will understand you have every right to refuse!



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans
Sorry but it's the same thing as forcing a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding.


It's been illustrated many times and quite clearly why it is NOT the same thing.



If you expect Christian bakers to bake your gay wedding cakes then gay bakers better be able to bake Christian cakes for Christians.


This baker is not gay. She just doesn't do hate speech on her cakes.



Take your hypocrisy and suck it down.


When you point out the hypocrisy, I will suck with all my might.


originally posted by: Logarock
So its was a matter of conscience for the baker? Based on her world view ect.


Yes, but she doesn't do that kind of decoration for ANYONE. THAT's the point.

By the way, if the baker who refused to make the gay couple's cake a couple years ago had refused to decorate the cake with a statue of two men, I would have been in support of the baker because he doesn't do that for ANYONE.

This isn't really that difficult to understand.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
As far as I can gather, saying you hate gays is the pinnacle of American culture. The baker is anti-American for not making the cake.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock


Again is it really the bakers place to discriminate against anyone? Her poor conscience was being violated? What ever happened to the old burger slogan "anyway you like it".


it really is so unfortunate that laws require us to be at least semi-decent and friendly to one another.

i feel your pain.

/sarcasm


edit on 16-1-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Yeah I'm sure we are not alone Tzar



It would have involved profane profanity!!!




posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views. The other guy wasn't allowed to do that.

The customer here was trying to get the baker to decorate a cake in a manner that is obviously offensive to the baker personally. For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.



Nope. Not the same thing. For example, a baker could decide that they won't make a cake that looks like a penis. They won't do it for ANYONE - not for a group of heterosexual women having a bachelorette party, nor for a group of gays.
If the baker agreed to do a penis cake for the heterosexual women, but not do the exact same cake for the gays - THAT is being discriminatory.

This baker won't decorate a cake with an anti-gay message for ANYONE - not for a Jew, not for a Christian, not for an atheist - no one. That is not discriminatory.

Well we don't have to go hypothetical here because we know the specifics of the case. And it is discriminatory in that the baker is not going to tell everyone to take the cake home and write whatever they want on it. Baker would have to not do communicative decorations at all for anyone in order to fall under your definition.

Sorry but not wanting to go along with an act of discrimination such as writing the hate speech on the cake is not an act of discrimination. As it said in the article this baker will not put anything discriminatory on their cakes. You will find that the law will support the baker and not the man who wants to spew hate disguised as religion.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I think Logarock is purposely not getting it. I wish people would just let things go when it is pointed out how wrong they are.




top topics



 
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join