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: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

If it rained lemon drops and malt balls oh what a world that would be.
Hypothetical is hypothetical.
I guess we will never know since that isn't what happened.




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NavyDoc

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



That certainly is discriminatory. Discrimination is not only in those subsets. You simply have a set where you think discrimination should not be allowed--IE, some discrimination you dislike and some you do.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
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?
Probably. But it would be hard to play out. You go to the bakery, make selections, discuss icing and whatnot, and then the baker finds out it's for a gay wedding? "Oh.. uh... we're overbooked now, all of a sudden!"

I wouldn't buy it.

And it's not like a person would come flaming into the bakery on rainbows wearing YCMA cosplay, so the baker probably wouldn't know immediately they're a gay couple.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

We have a different view on what is discriminatory, guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

When that situation actually happens we can have the conversation, until then it is just a what if.
edit on thWed, 08 Jul 2015 14:02:19 -0500America/Chicago720151980 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
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?
Probably. But it would be hard to play out. You go to the bakery, make selections, discuss icing and whatnot, and then the baker finds out it's for a gay wedding? "Oh.. uh... we're overbooked now, all of a sudden!"

I wouldn't buy it.

And it's not like a person would come flaming into the bakery on rainbows wearing YCMA cosplay, so the baker probably wouldn't know immediately they're a gay couple.


Or the "I'm sorry were booked up" will automatically lead to "it's because we're gay, we're going to sue" and, like our current "anti-discrimination laws" you will have a cottage industries of lawyers and plaintiffs looking for suits and people will have to dance on eggshells lest they offend yet another protected class and get a lawsuit.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Making a livelihood requires earning money, right? Seems to me that refusing to sell goods and services is the exact opposite of that. This isn't about livelihood, this is about denying public accommodations to a protected class of people....something the Baker was, or should have been, aware of before applying for a business license and opening up shop in that state.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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?



Well considering God was the one who made the OT decree, and the Jesus, Himself, made the NT one, and basically Jesus and God are two sides of the same coin ... you can't really discount what God said.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Well, I have been mostly loathe to make this argument too ...

(BTW, LeatherNLace, great point on the business licences, except that for most of these folks, a) religious faith trumps all (even gun rights) and b) Hobby Lobby et. al.

The thing about the cake particularly is that ... these are really not religious issues.

There are no biblical injunctions not to sell or to produce goods for "sinners."

There are no biblical injunctions against same-sex marriage.

The biblical "definition" of marriage can hardly be limited merely to monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Divorce is absolutely forbidden except in cases of adultery, regardless of the mumbo-jumbo some denominations offer to explain THAT BIBLICAL DIRECTIVE way.

Finally, in a culture in which it WAS a point of religion for men to be married and producing families by a very early age, the two founders of Christianity were apparently UNMARRIED (or at least, there's no biblical record of their marriages) until their deaths.

At what point does a "religious belief" become a "personal belief" ... or another way of saying it ... I may believe something about my religion, does that rise to the level of a tenet of faith?

And, if we are to set the limit of what constitutes religion to "whatever someone claims to be believed" ... what Pandora's Box are we opening?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
a reply to: NavyDoc

Making a livelihood requires earning money, right? Seems to me that refusing to sell goods and services is the exact opposite of that. This isn't about livelihood, this is about denying public accommodations to a protected class of people....something the Baker was, or should have been, aware of before applying for a business license and opening up shop in that state.


Oh, I can agree that refusing decent money is a stupid idea, especially in today's economy, but should the government outlaw poor business decisions--which would be rather ironic because the poorest business decision maker in the US is the government.

"Protected class"--don't you think that such a term should not exist in an allegedly egalitarian society? Are you for a classless society?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
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.


I've said before if someone came in and just ordered a wedding cake without giving particulars. There is nothing to protest.

www.ask.com...

Here's a link to my search browser image page. As you can see, most of these don't feature toppers, just layers and colors.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Do you have evidence of civil suits placed by any of these couples?

I've been asking and no one's answering.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: LeatherNLace

I thought there was a difference between "public accommodations" & a "private business"... One is owned by the "public" and one is not ? Or has that changed ?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
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?
Probably. But it would be hard to play out. You go to the bakery, make selections, discuss icing and whatnot, and then the baker finds out it's for a gay wedding? "Oh.. uh... we're overbooked now, all of a sudden!"

I wouldn't buy it.

And it's not like a person would come flaming into the bakery on rainbows wearing YCMA cosplay, so the baker probably wouldn't know immediately they're a gay couple.


Or the "I'm sorry were booked up" will automatically lead to "it's because we're gay, we're going to sue" and, like our current "anti-discrimination laws" you will have a cottage industries of lawyers and plaintiffs looking for suits and people will have to dance on eggshells lest they offend yet another protected class and get a lawsuit.
Which would fail the moment the business opens their records and show that yes, in fact, they are overbooked.

Why is it that the concept of common human decency flies out the window when it supports an agenda?

Will some arsefaces troll people by asking them to bake ridiculous things? You bet. But most people just want to have the same service that everyone else gets.

To go back to a previous point you brought up. So long as the African-American bakery doesn't have to scribble "kill n###ers" or something on the cake for the KKK event, yes. They are legally obligated to bake that cake for them. Though, such a scenario is unlikely because I don't know if white supremacists would want to eat something cooked up by the people they hate.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: LeatherNLace

I thought there was a difference between "public accommodations" & a "private business"... One is owned by the "public" and one is not ? Or has that changed ?




It seems today that if you decide to put in all the risk for your own business, it suddenly is owned by everyone else as soon as you open for business.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I just get confused because many Christians say they are not bound to the OT since those are Jewish laws.

So, the follow up question, if they want to claim it is against their belief based on scripture, why do they get to pick and choose?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ketsuko

I just get confused because many Christians say they are not bound to the OT since those are Jewish laws.

So, the follow up question, if they want to claim it is against their belief based on scripture, why do they get to pick and choose?



God said it and Christ re-iterated it. Christ is basically God in human form. Christ said marriage is between man and woman and reinforces what God already decreed. Had God meant to change His mind on that, it would have been the perfect time for Christ to say so.

Now stop deflecting.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NavyDoc

Do you have evidence of civil suits placed by any of these couples?

I've been asking and no one's answering.


There are none that I know of. There is one in the UK against a church that appears to be the first of it's kind, however, that's the UK.

No, currently without such a suit, one can only surmise, however, given the myriad of other lawsuits for and by other protected classes one can logically see this potential. Jessie Jackson, for example, is famous for trying to shake down companies under the EEOC and lawyers frequently search out businesses to sue under the ADA for minor violations. Anti-discrimination lawsuits have become a cottage industry in this country and it is illogical not to assume that this trend will continue



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

A fundamental concept in both British and American law since at least the 1600's: Public Accomodation

Business also can't sell spoiled products and they have to pay taxes. All shockers I know.

Who knew businesses had to follow the law like everyone else?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


There is no need to be snide.
I for one do not believe the Government has the authority to dictate the pairing of human beings ; If that be the basis for your attitude.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Would you quote where god (I'm assuming YHVH) states that marriage is between a man and a woman?

Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join