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.
originally posted by: MrPlow
originally posted by: jaffo
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: jaffo
So...if a KKK member went to a Jewish bakery and demanded that the baker make him a cake in the shape of an Auschwitz oven for his next rally, evidently in America the baker would just have to make it for him or he would be in the wrong.
This question gets asked and answered over and over.
1. The baker wouldn't be forced to make a PRODUCT that he doesn't already make for other customers. Does he make Auschwitz oven cakes for others?
2. The KKK is not a protected group, because they don't have a HISTORY of being discriminated against.
3. Discrimination (legal) is based on the PERSON, not the PRODUCT. A baker cannot be forced to put two grooms on a wedding cake if he doesn't already do that for others. He can't be forced to decorate the cake with ANYTHING that he doesn't already do for other customers. If he doesn't want to make a cake that he deems offensive, he doesn't have to. But if, as in the Colorado baker's case, he is asked by two gay guys to make a wedding cake for them JUST LIKE other cake's he's made, then he is legally required to do it, even though he doesn't approve of gay marriage.
Straight wedding cake:
Gay wedding cake:
Got that? A baker cannot be forced to make a PRODUCT he doesn't already make. But he can be forced to serve a PERSON the exact same cake.
especially since Clinton passed a federal version of this law which is still on the books and since TWENTY States already have a similar law in effect.
The federal law is VERY different from the RFRAs in the states. It's been discussed many times, so I'm not going to go through it all.
FORCING a private business to do ANYTHING is ridiculous. As the consumer, people should speak with their dollars instead of demanding with their tears.
If said private business does not like that- they are free to go elsewhere, right? That's the same argument you're making.
If said private business wants to enjoy any benefits provided to them by the local, state, and federal governments for owning and operating a business, then they need to abide by the rules as well.
originally posted by: peskyhumans
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
But you're being hypocritical. How can you claim in one breath that stores need to serve everyone because it's discrimination otherwise, but in another breath say that you wouldn't wed someone from the KKK? So it's okay to discriminate against groups of people you don't like, but not against groups of people you do like?
This type of thing will only continue to inflate and get worse unless someone comes up with a sensible clear-cut law that everyone can at least tolerate. I think allowing small businesses (sole proprietors) to pick and choose their customers, and requiring all corporations to serve everyone, would be a clear-cut law that would at least be tolerable for everyone.
If the little old christian lady running a local bake shop won't bake your wedding cake, that's okay. You can go to a big-name bakery and get it there. If the mom and pop grocery near main street doesn't want to serve you, you can drive up to Wal-Mart and take your business there. This is capitalism 101 - you support your preferred businesses with your money.
originally posted by: LiberLegit
a reply to: theNLBS
Condescending, snarky, and cringe-worthy. This is the worst NLBS video of them all, and I've barely liked the few that I've watched but this is just the final nail in the coffin. This wasn't "digging" toward any truth remotely, it's basically a religion-bashing mud-pit which I can find on any atheist circle-jerk board on the internet. Leave religion out of it for a second: if I own a business I can refuse service to whoever I want. If I don't want your money, I don't have to take it - I don't care if you're the biggest fairy gay man in the world if I don't want to serve you I won't.
I'm seriously never clicking these topics ever again, and the pandering picture of Gervais reveals this NLBS bull# stems from militant aggressive atheism. I don't care about religion, or your opinion on faggots getting married - just give me the facts and call it a day.
Also it bothers me that this idiot somehow gets top of the board for topics, effectively pushing down whatever the most popular topic is on ATS right now. Whatever. Go ahead everyone, bow down and show how "open minded" you all are by bashing others for their religious beliefs, I won't be here to watch.
originally posted by: Ahabstar
I would deny KKK for the same reason.
Agreed. Without a doubt.
www.liveleak.com...
www.dailymail.co.uk...
originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
Wondering where the disconnect is............ [/sarc]
A cake made for the general public was ordered by the gay couple.
A special cake NOT made for the general public was ordered by the Christian.
One of these things is not the same. Can you see what it is or do we need to hold your hand and spell it out yet another time?
originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
What part of "the same as what they sell to the general public" and "NOT the same as what they sell to the general public" do you not understand?
Or are you being willfully ignorant?
I vote the later.....
originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
If I lived in Indiana I'd be testing this by denying service to divorced Christians on religious grounds. See if they like it.
Or Christians wearing 2 different fabrics.
Or Christian women menstruating.
Or Christian parents who let their kids talk back.
Or Christian ladies with green eyes.
Etc. Etc. AD NASEUM.......
originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
I know I'll be called a hypocrite now. But let me explain how doing the exact same thing to make a point is not hypocritical. It's making a statement.
Because obviously I would have the right to serve whom I choose correct?
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
One, that's a personal slur.
Two, what part of one was told they could refuse to bake a cake and one was told they could not did you not get??? A CAKE. Not something else.
originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
One, that's a personal slur.
Go ahead and try to dock me for it. You are a mod correct?
Oh wait....you can't because it's not......
Two, what part of one was told they could refuse to bake a cake and one was told they could not did you not get??? A CAKE. Not something else.
No one was told they can refuse to bake a cake. Get your "facts" correct please.
Or show us the verdict to back up your nonsense.
originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
I said the actual verdict.
Not political outcast.
Try again. Or do you want to claim a personal attack so you don't have to respond?
originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
I'll help you since you are obviously blind then.....
1. The "gay" cake the gay couple ordered was the exact same as a "straight" cake that the maker bakes.
originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
2. The Christian ordered something that the cake maker does not do (BTW...she didn't refuse to bake the cake.....another indication you haven't read the actual verdicts).
originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
Hence why one was considered discrimination and the other one wasn't.
originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
Again....please read the actual verdicts (and not an opinion piece about the verdicts) and you could see. Unless you want to be willfully ignorant (not a personal attack....just something you have been demonstrating).
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Baking a wedding cake is participation in the wedding. If you were not blind, you could see this.
Post a link. I haven't seen one yet.
originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Baking a wedding cake is participation in the wedding. If you were not blind, you could see this.
Please explain how baking a cake is participating. Are they participating in adultery when they bake a cake for divorced people's remarriage?
Jesus is VERY explicit when it comes to divorce and adultery.
originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Post a link. I haven't seen one yet.
Try looking in other places than ultra Christian or ultra conservative sites and you might learn something.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Baking a wedding cake is participation in the wedding. If you were not blind, you could see this.
Please explain how baking a cake is participating. Are they participating in adultery when they bake a cake for divorced people's remarriage?
Jesus is VERY explicit when it comes to divorce and adultery.
Read what I stated about divorce. Divorce is allowed if there is infidelity in the marriage. If there isn't, it is a different matter. A baker could, as far as I am concerned, refuse such a cake, if they had an issue with that. How a person interprets what they believe is their decision. That's the point. Religious beliefs are protected. That doesn't mean one group can claim the beliefs are only protected IF the people practice according to how the group claims they should. In other words, it isn't what you think, or I think, about what the Bible says, that will determine the baker's beliefs. The baker decides what he believes on his own, and should have the right to do so, and also to avoid actions that he believes compromise his faith. Some bakers won't care, and some will. As for the cake itself, I consider a wedding cake to be a big part of a wedding. I made the cake myself for my daughter's wedding, because it meant a lot to both of us. I wouldn't want to do that for a wedding I believed was wrong, though, for whatever reason.
I look all over online, when reading about various issues. Your bias is showing, though. Do you not have a link?