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.

 

Bakers Ordered to Pay $135,000 for Refusing Gay Wedding Service

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: 9thWatcher

Sooo... Because gay people can marry in the United States now, a war has begun?

Nay, a war was ALREADY in full swing, and gay marriage was just another "shot" in that war?

Do you know what war is?

You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.


Yes, there is a 'war' against people who don't want to participate in or recognize someone else's sexual preferences. They are being targeted, exactly like the business owners in the OP. There are dozens of other identical cases. A homosexual couple targets a business that they know is a decent mom and pop owned store and then ask them to do something (usually that they don't even want) for their gay wedding, and then notify all the media outlets when the store owners predictably decline to offer services.




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

In your private life no, when you extend that to discriminate in a public business yes.

Your rights end where mine begin.

No one is forcing this baker to abandon her beliefs, just offer a service to someone that she offers to everyone else.

I am also against hiding behind a false belief, nothing in the bible says you can't make a cake for a gay wedding.


But the Bible says twice that marriage is between man and woman. So if nothing says you can't make a cake for a gay wedding, it DOES say twice that only man and woman can get married. Is the gay man marrying a woman? I will bake that cake. Is the gay woman marrying a man? I will bake that cake, too.

But since two men cannot get married, there is no wedding to bake a cake for. That is the likely the issue.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

She is not the one marrying them, the cake doesn't make the marriage official.

In other words it is not her fight to fight.

She is in the business of baking cakes for people, not marrying them.

And one of those is Old testament right?

Thought chirstians are not bound by those.

And the other is matthew, which is just the rephrasing of the Genisis...

Does she follow ALL the OT rules in her belief?


edit on thWed, 08 Jul 2015 13:39:05 -0500America/Chicago720150580 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

So bake a "ceremony" cake that looks exactly like a wedding cake.

And tastes the same too.

Problem solved! You don't have to call it a "wedding". It's just a cake.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

And the Muslims would make the cake, they just wouldn't put the picture on the cake.

I am sure that is the video you are referencing.

Which I agree with, they are still offering the service at the end of the day.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

People have the right to belief and the right to refuse should be a right.

If you don't believe the kkk cake article go tell washingtonweeklynews.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: theabsolutetruth



Your rights end where mine begin.



How does anyone have a "right" to the services of another?

So some one else's rights are nullified completely when they come in conflict with your own?

Seems to me if two people both have rights and they come in conflict the correct answer would be that they both simply agree to disagree and go about their business rather than have the state arbitrarily declare whose rights are more "valid."



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Most of the quoted cases are about refusal to DECORATE in a way they consider offensive. The thread article guy says he serves gays every day though refused to make a specific wedding cake for them as he doesn't agree to gay marriage, it isn't a refusal of service to gays generally.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Sremmos80

Most of the quoted cases are about refusal to DECORATE in a way they consider offensive. The thread article guy says he serves gays every day though refused to make a specific wedding cake for them as he doesn't agree to gay marriage, it isn't a refusal of service to gays generally.


Right. He didn't refuse because they were gay since he serves gay people all of the time. He just didn't want to provide for a specific event--it'd be similar to making an African American cater a KKK rally. He doesn't refuse white people, he just doesn't want to support that particular event. I'd support someone who refused to cater an NRA convention either, if they felt that strongly about it.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth




People have the right to belief and the right to refuse should be a right.


Not when you refuse based on discriminatory reasons, you do remember why we had to have a the civil rights act right?
No one is asking her to give up her belief, just to offer the service she provides to the public to all.
And if she wants to take the "It's against my beliefs" then she better do that for ALL the rules, not just one.


Find me the actual court ruling for the KKK cake, I showed you where it was debunked already and your source goes back to that one.

Until then it is a fake posted on a satirical site.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




How does anyone have a "right" to the services of another?


I'll take a stab at this. When a prospective business applies for a business license, then they are entering into a legal contract with the state to follow the rules and regulations of that state as they pertain to businesses considered "public accommodations". By entering into that agreement, the newly established business is bound by law to serve the public.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

People have the right to use what is offered to the public.

You don't have the right to refuse them that service based on discriminatory purposes.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
a reply to: NavyDoc




How does anyone have a "right" to the services of another?


I'll take a stab at this. When a prospective business applies for a business license, then they are entering into a legal contract with the state to follow the rules and regulations of that state as they pertain to businesses considered "public accommodations". By entering into that agreement, the newly established business is bound by law to serve the public.


So you think one should have to have the government's permission to run a business and that trying to make a livelihood entitles the government to tell you how to run your business?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NavyDoc

People have the right to use what is offered to the public.

You don't have the right to refuse them that service based on discriminatory purposes.



Yes I do. I could refuse to cater an NRA convention all day long. That the NRA wants me to, does not obligate me to serve them.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
No shoes, no shirt, no more right to control your own business.

On the plus side, now they can't throw me out of Victoria's Secret anymore.
edit on 8-7-2015 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth




He states that he then informed the women that the bakery does not make cakes for homosexual events.


Sorry what are you talking about decorating?


It is entirely a refusal of service based on being gay.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




So you think one should have to have the government's permission to run a business and that trying to make a livelihood entitles the government to tell you how to run your business?


The Baker should have read the state laws before entering a legal agreement; it was their choice to open shop in that state. There are plenty of other states that allow businesses to discriminate; They should have chosen one of those other states to open shop.

So, to answer your question, YES!



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

If the bakers had told the gay couple they were simply overbooked, do you think they would have just gone on to the next bakery?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

That isn't discriminatory, you are not refusing based on race, color, religion, national origin or sexual orientation.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
a reply to: NavyDoc




So you think one should have to have the government's permission to run a business and that trying to make a livelihood entitles the government to tell you how to run your business?


The Baker should have read the state laws before entering a legal agreement; it was their choice to open shop in that state. There are plenty of other states that allow businesses to discriminate; They should have chosen one of those other states to open shop.

So, to answer your question, YES!


So, in essence, you think someone should not be able to make a livelihood if you disagree with them? There are state laws that (or did) ban gay marriage altogether. Would you have told gay couples in those states to "suck it up, you need to move to another state" or would you agree that the law was unjust and support them both changing it and/or defying it?




top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join