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.

 

HIDDEN CAMERA: Gay Wedding Cake At Muslim Bakeries

page: 17
49
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv




It begins the change. Then the next generation will be adjusted to the idea, and future generations will have trouble understanding why people had such a problem with equal treatment of gays.


It is also unconstitutional ... The change you wish to enforce takes away the freedom of choice of the individual ... If you do not like or agree with someone then walk away if they have done you no harm ...




posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc



And you are using the same illogical arguement over and over again that not forcing people to give you stuff is "persecution."


Yup, the same illogical argument you're using over and over again that "forcing" businesses to sell their products to all citizens equally is somehow robbing businesses of their "freedoms".

Like I said, the white folk cried the same fowl play 50+ years ago.

And here we are, yet again.

Selective memory is funny that way.


And it's an example of lack of understanding of this history in your part.


I was there. The 50s, like most things of the past - - is selective memory.

Men, women, children by gender were still, mostly, forced into stereotype roles.

Yes, I lived prior to the Fair Housing Act, Disability Act, Civil Rights, and Madeline Murray O'Hare.

Jews in my public school were forced to participate in the Christmas program.


And you still don't understand. You are a sweet old lady but it's not 1950 any more.


I understand perfectly.

My mom was disabled by polio prior to the Disability Act.

The Disability Act had to be forced.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge



What does free speech have anything to do with business commerce ?


LOL I've asked him that question many times in other thread. He has never gave a clear explanation.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc

What does free speech have anything to do with business commerce ?


The principle is the same. Just as we may tolerate some bad language rather than banning free speech because that freedom is important we should be willing to tolerate a few bigots because the freedom of association is just as important. Part of living in a free society is having to tolerate some crap we don't like on occasion.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
"The Establishment Clause was written by Congressman Fisher Ames in 1789, who derived it from discussions in the First Congress of various drafts that would become the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. The second half of the Establishment Clause includes the Free Exercise Clause, which attempts to guarantee freedom from governmental interference in both private or public religious affairs of all kinds.

The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from passing legislation that prohibits the free exercise of religion."


edit on 3-4-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Ah, but we are not equal if you have that choice and I dont. You can come into my business and do business with me or not as you see fit but you don't want me to have the same right. Do business with you are your will or lose my liveyhood. When you want choice but don't want me to have choice. We are not equal.


You made your choice. You chose to be open for business. To make a cake if someone comes in and asks for a cake. That was your choice. I didn't make it for you. I didn't force you to open up for cake making business or make you open your doors when you didn't want to. You're open and it was your choice. My choice is taking you up on your offer. I am meeting my side. I'm not making you bake me cookies or a sandwich. You chose to bake cakes. I'm choosing to buy cakes. Both free choices by both of us. You are trying to back out of your choice to offer cakes after you've made that choice of your own free will. By denying me a cake you are restricting my Freedom of choice by saying I cannot take you up on your offer.


And it wasn't cling "firsties" it was not letting you get away with the Hilkary Clinton technique of debate--I ignore the question and change the subject.

Certainly Chrustians passed the FRA law and probably most of the accomdation laws and tax laws and traffic laws. Hell, even out President says he's one.


Right. It's the Christians who are getting Government involved. Why not be pissed at them then???


Now can you point out in the letter of the law where any group is singled out?


The law doesn't say it's only one group. This law allows you to discriminate against any group because of your Religion. I wouldn't call that making it any better would you???

BTW, this law does exclude one group however. It excludes Atheists from the same Protections because they have no Religion to be the Author of their Beliefs. To me that is making a law Respecting Religion. Another no no by the Constitution.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc



And you are using the same illogical arguement over and over again that not forcing people to give you stuff is "persecution."


Yup, the same illogical argument you're using over and over again that "forcing" businesses to sell their products to all citizens equally is somehow robbing businesses of their "freedoms".

Like I said, the white folk cried the same fowl play 50+ years ago.

And here we are, yet again.

Selective memory is funny that way.


And it's an example of lack of understanding of this history in your part.


I was there. The 50s, like most things of the past - - is selective memory.

Men, women, children by gender were still, mostly, forced into stereotype roles.

Yes, I lived prior to the Fair Housing Act, Disability Act, Civil Rights, and Madeline Murray O'Hare.

Jews in my public school were forced to participate in the Christmas program.


And you still don't understand. You are a sweet old lady but it's not 1950 any more.


I understand perfectly.

My mom was disabled by polio prior to the Disability Act.

The Disability Act had to be forced.


You know, you really shouldn't bring your mom into a conversation unless you are willing to discuss the merits of her issue and her discrimination, alleged or not without getting upset.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: CranialSponge



What does free speech have anything to do with business commerce ?


LOL I've asked him that question many times in other thread. He has never gave a clear explanation.


And you still haven't figured out. I'm getting to think that the inability to think abstractly is a common trait of the left.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: kaylaluv




It begins the change. Then the next generation will be adjusted to the idea, and future generations will have trouble understanding why people had such a problem with equal treatment of gays.


It is also unconstitutional ... The change you wish to enforce takes away the freedom of choice of the individual ... If you do not like or agree with someone then walk away if they have done you no harm ...


What if a person has the only gas station for many miles and they refuse to sell gas to a gay guy who has run out and has nowhere else to go, but they sell the same gas to a straight guy that comes by at the same time?

Having "whites only" establishments took away the freedom of blacks to participate in public accommodation. Do you think it was unconstitutional to tell these establishments that they had to treat blacks equally?



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc



And you still haven't figured out. I'm getting to think that the inability to think abstractly is a common trait of the left.


Another personal attack as expected from you. You know nothing about me.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc



And you are using the same illogical arguement over and over again that not forcing people to give you stuff is "persecution."


Yup, the same illogical argument you're using over and over again that "forcing" businesses to sell their products to all citizens equally is somehow robbing businesses of their "freedoms".

Like I said, the white folk cried the same fowl play 50+ years ago.

And here we are, yet again.

Selective memory is funny that way.


And it's an example of lack of understanding of this history in your part.


I was there. The 50s, like most things of the past - - is selective memory.

Men, women, children by gender were still, mostly, forced into stereotype roles.

Yes, I lived prior to the Fair Housing Act, Disability Act, Civil Rights, and Madeline Murray O'Hare.

Jews in my public school were forced to participate in the Christmas program.


And you still don't understand. You are a sweet old lady but it's not 1950 any more.


I understand perfectly.

My mom was disabled by polio prior to the Disability Act.

The Disability Act had to be forced.


You know, you really shouldn't bring your mom into a conversation unless you are willing to discuss the merits of her issue and her discrimination, alleged or not without getting upset.


Do you just choose the Fork in the Road when it suits you - - because you have no real platform of rebuttal?



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

I'm sorry you are having such a hard time grasping the concept of private ownership of property. Perhaps in Canadia they don't teach these things, but in America we still have a few rights left. I would ask that you look at it from another perspective and then see if you can empathize with the injustice of forcing someone to provide a service against their will.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv



What if a person has the only gas station for many miles and they refuse to sell gas to a gay guy who has run out and has nowhere else to go, but they sell the same gas to a straight guy that comes by at the same time?


That question have been asked many many times. They choose to ignore that. I have no idea why.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: coop039

originally posted by: kaylaluv
This whole stunt is comparing apples to oranges.

The guy in the video is trying to make the bakers put something specifically gay on the cake. The gay couple who went to the Christian baker were asking for a traditional cake with nothing gay on it.

I believe a baker can refuse any special decoration request. What he cannot refuse to do is to sell the exact same product to one group that he sells to another group. If he sells a white wedding cake with pink roses on it to a straight couple, then he should sell that same white wedding cake with pink roses on it to a gay couple (or a black couple, or an atheist couple, or a Muslim couple, etc.)

If this guy had gone into the Muslim bakery and asked for a traditional cake that any straight couple would buy (except that it would be for a gay couple) and the baker refused, then I would say that the Muslim bakery was wrong and should be held accountable. But that's not what happened here, is it?


I thought they wanted two men figurines on top? And that was what set the whole thing in motion.


When the baker refused that, the customer then asked if he could put a photo of he and his husband on the cake...when the baker refused, the groom pointed out in the bakery's catalog that there were photos of other married couples they put on cakes. Then, the groom asked the baker just to WRITE 'Steven loves Bob forever...and Gay marriage now is legal'...and the baker refused. I believe the baker said "I don't want it"...and waved the groom away. I may have those out of order, but that's the gist of the transaction.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Ah, but we are not equal if you have that choice and I dont. You can come into my business and do business with me or not as you see fit but you don't want me to have the same right. Do business with you are your will or lose my liveyhood. When you want choice but don't want me to have choice. We are not equal.


You made your choice. You chose to be open for business. To make a cake if someone comes in and asks for a cake. That was your choice. I didn't make it for you. I didn't force you to open up for cake making business or make you open your doors when you didn't want to. You're open and it was your choice. My choice is taking you up on your offer. I am meeting my side. I'm not making you bake me cookies or a sandwich. You chose to bake cakes. I'm choosing to buy cakes. Both free choices by both of us. You are trying to back out of your choice to offer cakes after you've made that choice of your own free will. By denying me a cake you are restricting my Freedom of choice by saying I cannot take you up on your offer.


And it wasn't cling "firsties" it was not letting you get away with the Hilkary Clinton technique of debate--I ignore the question and change the subject.

Certainly Chrustians passed the FRA law and probably most of the accomdation laws and tax laws and traffic laws. Hell, even out President says he's one.


Right. It's the Christians who are getting Government involved. Why not be pissed at them then???


Now can you point out in the letter of the law where any group is singled out?


The law doesn't say it's only one group. This law allows you to discriminate against any group because of your Religion. I wouldn't call that making it any better would you???

BTW, this law does exclude one group however. It excludes Atheists from the same Protections because they have no Religion to be the Author of their Beliefs. To me that is making a law Respecting Religion. Another no no by the Constitution.


But you can choose not to buy I cake. I can't choose not to sell it. You are not obligated to buy from me and you don't have to but if I don't sell to you, you want the state to destroy me. You have more choices than I with nothing to lose. You have more choice than I we are not equal and you wish to make the state an agent of force against me to bend me to your will--you don't really desire equality in the first place.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NavyDoc



And you are using the same illogical arguement over and over again that not forcing people to give you stuff is "persecution."


Yup, the same illogical argument you're using over and over again that "forcing" businesses to sell their products to all citizens equally is somehow robbing businesses of their "freedoms".

Like I said, the white folk cried the same fowl play 50+ years ago.

And here we are, yet again.

Selective memory is funny that way.


And it's an example of lack of understanding of this history in your part.


I was there. The 50s, like most things of the past - - is selective memory.

Men, women, children by gender were still, mostly, forced into stereotype roles.

Yes, I lived prior to the Fair Housing Act, Disability Act, Civil Rights, and Madeline Murray O'Hare.

Jews in my public school were forced to participate in the Christmas program.


And you still don't understand. You are a sweet old lady but it's not 1950 any more.


I understand perfectly.

My mom was disabled by polio prior to the Disability Act.

The Disability Act had to be forced.


You know, you really shouldn't bring your mom into a conversation unless you are willing to discuss the merits of her issue and her discrimination, alleged or not without getting upset.


Do you just choose the Fork in the Road when it suits you - - because you have no real platform of rebuttal?





No, I'm just not going to delve into your mom and her alleged discrimination and the failings of the ADA and its abuses because then you'll become hysterical and go on about me being an evil tepublithug. My suggestion is not bring up personal stuff in a debate that your not willing to go into detail about and have shredded. People like to do that sort of thing because they think it gives them the moral high ground.
edit on 3-4-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Perfect example of the total disconnect from reality suffered by the loony left.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

I was referring to the Christian baker. The gay couple who went to the Christian baker just wanted a plain generic cake with no topper or writing or photos. He refused.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc



Right. Sign over all your autonomy by having to get a licensed you are forced to do or lose your livelihood. Fascism?


Well see that's the thing...

I have no problem abiding by the discrimination laws in my land. And, in fact, even if they didn't exist, my business would still be open to all who enter. Because that's the moral fabric I live by anyways.

If you walk on two legs (and/or your four legged companion is your eyes for you)... welcome, take a seat, and let's do business.

I don't need the government to tell me to be a good person, but apparently there are plenty out there that do.



Fascism ?

No, it's called cohesive commerce under a free market structure.

Unless you want to open your business on a private island somewhere, where your business doesn't benefit from taxpayer infrastructure, government subsidies and tax breaks, with the added bonus of bypasser walk-in business...

Then by all means, you can make up your own rules as you go along because it'll be your own little country.




posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Smack
a reply to: CranialSponge

I'm sorry you are having such a hard time grasping the concept of private ownership of property. Perhaps in Canadia they don't teach these things, but in America we still have a few rights left. I would ask that you look at it from another perspective and then see if you can empathize with the injustice of forcing someone to provide a service against their will.


What?

When you open a business, you are required to get a government business license. Is that different in Canada?

You are required to accept the terms of that contract.

If that contract, that you signed, states you can not discriminate against a customer - - - you can't. What you believe has nothing to do with it.




top topics



 
49
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join