It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The original story made the news about a year ago, and now the court result is in. A couple who owns a bakery must now pay $135,000 to a gay couple for refusing to provide service at their gay wedding.
originally posted by: wayforward
The first amendment is the freedom of speech. Service, or servitude, is is mentioned as the 13th amendment, which is the right human beings have to refuse to involuntarily serve others. On one hand what goes around comes around. During the 1960's, bakers were forced to involuntarily serve black people in bakeries. The Christians never made an uproar or mentioned, "gee, what if someone makes me serve a customer that I find offensive... that wouldn't be right". So, now they face the consequences, now that the tides have shifted against them.
But, two wrongs never, never, make a right. The US constitution correctly points out that service of any and ALL kinds is voluntary. It is up to each business which customers they serve. If a business chooses to be offensively and grossly unfair about ANY of their policies, then customers can simply leave and shop elsewhere. Problem solved, without any use of violence. Big stores all know what happens when they do things that are offensive. They piss off their customer base and lose loyalty.
The poorly phrased US 13th Amendment is simply phrased and simple to understand. And while we could go around all day thinking of rare exceptions, its a good rule and it works. So, making exceptions is a waste of time and revokes status as a right. If something has ANY exceptions whatsoever, its then a privilege. The well-phrased 1st Amendment gives every person the right to post other people's contact information. If you don't have a confidentiality agreement, you have an absolute right to post contact information. If you don't have that right, you are a subject of the government, not a citizen. So, which is it? Most people honestly have little appreciation for freedoms, and much more appreciation for self-righteous judgement of others.
Failing to be served by someone who doesn't approve of your actions is bad. Being forced to serve any other person in any situation is a crime against humanity, so much worse. We have a right to set our own values, or we are not a fully free people. Freedom is what gives us life. Without choices, we are simply robots. Freedom is one step back, but two steps forward.
originally posted by: 9thWatcher
Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown.
originally posted by: Britguy
The problem with all this "hate" legislation, is that there will always be people, serial victims for instance, waiting in the wings to exploit it to make a name for themselves, and maybe a bit of cash on the side as well.
Real freedom dictates that the bakery owners have the right, as a private business, to decide who they do business with. If others do not like it, then tough, get over it.
I see there have been a few similar cases in recent times and it smacks of deliberate targeting of those individuals or businesses by people who already know, or expect a particular response or outcome, and are simply using it to push their own agendas.
Where do you draw the line?
If I tried to join an exclusive country club and they refused because I'm deemed not rich or affluent enough, would that also be grounds to sue them in court for discrimination?