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: 4
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: buster2010
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.



Well it was a private business proposition were the personal preferences of the persons providing service were brought to bear on the outcome in both cases.

Just because it was a private business proposition doesn't mean the baker has to put hate speech on the cake the man wanted. Crying it's my religion doesn't give a person an automatic free pass on spreading hate.


Was he "spreading hate" or just trolling? If one refuses a cake based on moral grounds, "I won't put hateful messages on my cakes," why can't another refuse on moral grounds, "I won't bake a cake for a gay wedding." Both are moral positions. Both are probably based on deep seated feelings and beliefs. Why should the government force one but not the other?




posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: NavyDoc

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.



And that is the whole point of he exercise. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.


Except that the point of this exercise is apparently what's good for the goose should be good for the .... alien on a space ship (i.e., apples/oranges). It WILL get thrown out of court.


Oh, I don't doubt it will get thrown out of court, however, it just seems that some discrimination is okay in our society and some is not.


That may or may not be true, but in THIS case, there is no discrimination.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Logarock
Positive message?


Yes, like "Praise the Lord!" or "The Lord is my Shepherd". You know, POSITIVE MESSAGES. Not negative messages like, "Homosexuals are Despicable Sinners!"

Got it?


So now you want to dictate fair and acceptable religious speech? Is that it?



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Oh, I don't doubt it will get thrown out of court, however, it just seems that some discrimination is okay in our society and some is not.


Absolutely. That is why we have protections in place for things our society has deemed inappropriate to discriminate against.

Age. Sex. Religion. Race. Disability. Those are the big 5 that are protected.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Oh, I don't doubt it will get thrown out of court, however, it just seems that some discrimination is okay in our society and some is not.


OK Doc, explain how this man is being discriminated against.

The baker makes cakes for everyone.
The baker refuses to put hateful messages for everyone.
The baker treats everyone the same.

Where's the discrimination?


He refused to put a message on a cake, which is his right. However, in doing so, he has to make a discriminating decision. What is hateful? What is not? It is a subjective and personal bit of judgement. Judgment that I'm fine with, I don't think he should have, just as I don't think anyone should be forced to make a business transaction they find objectionable.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: buster2010
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.



Well it was a private business proposition were the personal preferences of the persons providing service were brought to bear on the outcome in both cases.

Just because it was a private business proposition doesn't mean the baker has to put hate speech on the cake the man wanted. Crying it's my religion doesn't give a person an automatic free pass on spreading hate.


Was he "spreading hate" or just trolling? If one refuses a cake based on moral grounds, "I won't put hateful messages on my cakes," why can't another refuse on moral grounds, "I won't bake a cake for a gay wedding." Both are moral positions. Both are probably based on deep seated feelings and beliefs. Why should the government force one but not the other?


One is discriminating against a protected classification: Sex.
One is not discriminating against a protected classification: Hate.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If one refuses a cake based on moral grounds, "I won't put hateful messages on my cakes," why can't another refuse on moral grounds, "I won't bake a cake for a gay wedding." Both are moral positions. Both are probably based on deep seated feelings and beliefs. Why should the government force one but not the other?


In the first case, the baker treats all customers the SAME. In other words, they won't put hateful messages on their cakes for ANYONE

In the second case, they make wedding cakes for STRAIGHT people, but not for GAY people.

It's so simple, anyone should understand.
edit on 1/16/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.

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



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: NavyDoc

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.



And that is the whole point of he exercise. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.


Except that the point of this exercise is apparently what's good for the goose should be good for the .... alien on a space ship (i.e., apples/oranges). It WILL get thrown out of court.


Oh, I don't doubt it will get thrown out of court, however, it just seems that some discrimination is okay in our society and some is not.


That may or may not be true, but in THIS case, there is no discrimination.


How? What makes what he wanted to say any more or less hateful or unpleasant than a thousand other things people put on cakes? Seems like a subjective stance to me. What one person finds hateful may not be hateful to another. I think many people here would find a gun shaped cake for a child abhorrent whereas many would not think so at all.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: NavyDoc

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.



And that is the whole point of he exercise. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.


Except that the point of this exercise is apparently what's good for the goose should be good for the .... alien on a space ship (i.e., apples/oranges). It WILL get thrown out of court.


Oh, I don't doubt it will get thrown out of court, however, it just seems that some discrimination is okay in our society and some is not.


That may or may not be true, but in THIS case, there is no discrimination.



It really doesn't get more discriminatory. Is she in the cake business or trying to monitor peoples attitudes? What you are saying is that she is allowed to be discriminatory and yet not at the same time.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: buster2010
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.



Well it was a private business proposition were the personal preferences of the persons providing service were brought to bear on the outcome in both cases.

Just because it was a private business proposition doesn't mean the baker has to put hate speech on the cake the man wanted. Crying it's my religion doesn't give a person an automatic free pass on spreading hate.


Was he "spreading hate" or just trolling? If one refuses a cake based on moral grounds, "I won't put hateful messages on my cakes," why can't another refuse on moral grounds, "I won't bake a cake for a gay wedding." Both are moral positions. Both are probably based on deep seated feelings and beliefs. Why should the government force one but not the other?


It's quite simple. One is about denying service to one group of people. The other is about denying offensive wording to EVERYONE. That's not discriminatory at all.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
So now you want to dictate fair and acceptable religious speech? Is that it?


I think you've jumped the shark. If you don't see the difference between "Praise the Lord!" and "Homosexuals are Detestable Sinners", I really have no hope that you'll understand.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: buster2010
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.



Well it was a private business proposition were the personal preferences of the persons providing service were brought to bear on the outcome in both cases.

Just because it was a private business proposition doesn't mean the baker has to put hate speech on the cake the man wanted. Crying it's my religion doesn't give a person an automatic free pass on spreading hate.


In fact, this case is sooooooo stupid, the customer was perfectly free to write the message on the cake himself.

If I was the baker I would have written my own personal message to the customer on the cake, which would have started wtih, "Go..." and ended with "Yourself."



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc


I think many people here would find a gun shaped cake for a child abhorrent whereas many would not think so at all.


Abhorrent... Check
Offensive... Check
Hate Filled... No



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: buster2010
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.



Well it was a private business proposition were the personal preferences of the persons providing service were brought to bear on the outcome in both cases.

Just because it was a private business proposition doesn't mean the baker has to put hate speech on the cake the man wanted. Crying it's my religion doesn't give a person an automatic free pass on spreading hate.


Was he "spreading hate" or just trolling? If one refuses a cake based on moral grounds, "I won't put hateful messages on my cakes," why can't another refuse on moral grounds, "I won't bake a cake for a gay wedding." Both are moral positions. Both are probably based on deep seated feelings and beliefs. Why should the government force one but not the other?


One is a product that the baker won't make (hate speech decoration), and the other is a product that the baker DOES make, just not for a specific event. You can't force the baker to make or sell a product that they won't make or sell to anyone, but you CAN make them sell a product that they DO normally bake. A "gay" cake is made out of the same ingredients as any other cake, so it is a product that they normally bake.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
What makes what he wanted to say any more or less hateful or unpleasant than a thousand other things people put on cakes? Seems like a subjective stance to me. What one person finds hateful may not be hateful to another. I think many people here would find a gun shaped cake for a child abhorrent whereas many would not think so at all.


All true. The point is the baker uses the same judgment for everyone. SHE wouldn't write "Christians are Detestable Bigots" on a cake, either.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If one refuses a cake based on moral grounds, "I won't put hateful messages on my cakes," why can't another refuse on moral grounds, "I won't bake a cake for a gay wedding." Both are moral positions. Both are probably based on deep seated feelings and beliefs. Why should the government force one but not the other?


In the first case, the baker treats all customers the SAME. In other words, they won't put hateful messages on their cakes for ANYONE

In the second case, they make wedding cakes for STRAIGHT people, but not for GAY people.

It's so simple, anyone should understand.


But she is not treating everyone the same. And according to the ruling made in the other case she cant make those sort of personal decisions. How dose the fact that she makes cakes for strait and gay folks give her a pass here? She has obviously decided that she won't give full service to some.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If one refuses a cake based on moral grounds, "I won't put hateful messages on my cakes," why can't another refuse on moral grounds, "I won't bake a cake for a gay wedding." Both are moral positions. Both are probably based on deep seated feelings and beliefs. Why should the government force one but not the other?


In the first case, the baker treats all customers the SAME. In other words, they won't put hateful messages on their cakes for ANYONE

In the second case, they make wedding cakes for STRAIGHT people, but not for GAY people.

It's so simple, anyone should understand.


NO, they made cakes for gay and straight people but just didn't want to make one for a gay wedding, something they found just as objectionable as whatever wording that this gay baker found on this cake request. Both bakers were uncomfortable with the specific request and both bakers refused, however we see here than the offended sensibilities of one baker apparently is held higher than the offended sensibilities of the other--and thus we see the hypocrisy in our PC system.

I believe I'm rather consistent in my potion--it is stupid to turn down good money and stupid to turn down business. It is rude and unpleasant to refuse to cater a gay wedding. I don't believe in Jesus so I don't care what he would or would not do. However, I am also leery about the state making laws to dictate every little human interaction and think it a bit short-sighted to support these laws which seem to be good as long as one agrees with the outcome but have the potential of being very troublesome in the future.

One should be free to do business with whom one wants to or not, free of coercion, and those who fail due to stupid business decisions deserve to fail.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
If I was the baker I would have written my own personal message to the customer on the cake, which would have started wtih, "Go..." and ended with "Yourself."


In spite of how I usually disagree with you, sometimes you come out with posts that I just have to star...



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
What makes what he wanted to say any more or less hateful or unpleasant than a thousand other things people put on cakes? Seems like a subjective stance to me. What one person finds hateful may not be hateful to another. I think many people here would find a gun shaped cake for a child abhorrent whereas many would not think so at all.


All true. The point is the baker uses the same judgment for everyone. SHE wouldn't write "Christians are Detestable Bigots" on a cake, either.


We know this how?


Would she have refused to, for example, make a "Screw the NRA cake?" We don't know, do we?




top topics



 
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join