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: 8
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Snide? Because I stated basic facts to you in response to your (rhetorical) question?

I hear you on your belief, but here's the thing, our individual beliefs do not dictate the laws of the land.

/shrug




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


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


This is what I was calling snide... To be clear, because I'm not sure you do hear me... I'm not against gay marriage...



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun





Which would fail the moment the business opens their records and show that yes, in fact, they are overbooked.


Not any more than "we did not hire him because he's black, we did not hire him because he failed the exam," has worked to forestall anti-discrimination lawsuits. The actual truth has not stopped them before, why should it now?




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


Agreed. And "common decency" would include simply going elsewhere rather than starting a lawsuit. Why does "common decency" only get to be one way?




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.


No they are not. One is not obligated to service a political event--which goes back to my premise that discrimination is certainly allowed in the US as long as it's the right kind of discrimination.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Thanks. I haven't been able to find anything on such suits either.

As to the matter about Jesse Jackson ... that's one individual, not an entire community. And yet, there are folks here who are certain that gays will be storming Christian businesses and churches looking for easy payoffs.

And a litigious nature is not limited to Blacks ... all races, creeds and colors can be said to be equally religious.

I know that you weren't saying that only Black people sue, but, you know, just making the point.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm not deflecting at all...
Just had to get it straight on what christians believe when it comes to the OT, Leviticus is a great example.

Did you miss the question where I asked why they can pick and choose what is against their beliefs?

Or are you going to tell me that the only rule for marriage, as said by God and Jesus, is that it needs to be a man and a women.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NavyDoc

Thanks. I haven't been able to find anything on such suits either.

As to the matter about Jesse Jackson ... that's one individual, not an entire community. And yet, there are folks here who are certain that gays will be storming Christian businesses and churches looking for easy payoffs.

And a litigious nature is not limited to Blacks ... all races, creeds and colors can be said to be equally religious.

I know that you weren't saying that only Black people sue, but, you know, just making the point.


No, that's a fair point and that wasn't my intent.

The point is that whenever we see another protected class added to the "official list," we see the lawsuit industry expand.
edit on 8-7-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Oh dear ... if you think that was snide you have a lot of surprises in store for you here at ATS.

However, being that you felt I was being unpleasant, I do apologize for that. I felt like I was stating simple fact, and perhaps I was probably responding to some of the things others have said in the thread in response to this same topic.

Every business, just like every citizen, has limitations placed on their activities by the local, State and national government.

It's like some folks didn't grow up here, or something.

Best.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun





Which would fail the moment the business opens their records and show that yes, in fact, they are overbooked.


Not any more than "we did not hire him because he's black, we did not hire him because he failed the exam," has worked to forestall anti-discrimination lawsuits. The actual truth has not stopped them before, why should it now?




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


Agreed. And "common decency" would include simply going elsewhere rather than starting a lawsuit. Why does "common decency" only get to be one way?




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.


No they are not. One is not obligated to service a political event--which goes back to my premise that discrimination is certainly allowed in the US as long as it's the right kind of discrimination.
Fair points, all.

But is a marriage a political event?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

The point is that whenever we see another protected class added to the "official list," we see the lawsuit industry expand.


Fair point. And I think that fact stems from two basic reasons:

1. Individuals take advantage of every law that can possibly be abused.

2. There was a good reason to make that class protected, as there is active discrimination against its members.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

As I said, most of the articles are about DECORATING and the thread article isn't about not serving gays it is about a gay wedding.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

If you notice, some Christians are "covered by the blood of Jesus" or "are not subject to the Law" when it suits them.

That doesn't apply, apparently, to anyone not in the club.

Of course, the exception is, some Christians don'f follow the teachings of Jesus, either.




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
which goes back to my premise that discrimination is certainly allowed in the US as long as it's the right kind of discrimination.


Yes, and I wouldn't have it any other way. At one point in time, being thought of as a discriminating individual was a compliment. It means, able to draw a distinction. The word has been turned on its head to the point that 'discrimination' is a pejorative term. But it shouldn't be.

We need to be able to draw distinctions. The alternative is absurd.

There are criteria and situations which make certain types of discrimination in certain situations bad, but you need to be discriminating about discrimination.

Discriminating between knuckleheaded goofs and intelligent, competent individuals is one thing. Discrimination based upon skin pigment, religious affiliation, national origin, or gender is not only counterproductive, in the US it can be illegal.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I don't see whats hard to understand, the Bakery discriminated, Oregon has State Anti-Discrimination Laws, the Bakery broke the law, pointblank period.com.or.co.uk

What if a Gay couple bought a cake there without telling them it was for a Wedding and sent them a picture after.. would God Forgive the Baker?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

It's about a cake, not a wedding.

Why don't you guys jump to the photographer already?

That case would be a lot easier for you guys to argue.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth




As I said, most of the articles are about DECORATING and the thread article isn't about not serving gays it is about a gay wedding.


Actually it is about a cake; a normal, ordinary wedding cake....an inanimate object that cannot have a sexual orientation.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,


“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
Genesis 2:20-24

God made woman for man that the two become one and she is called wife.


Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Matthew 19:3-6

Jesus is questioned on divorce by the Pharisees, and he repeats what God did in Genesis and says that the Creator said that man will leave his mother and father and be united to his wife.

So God decreed man and woman way back then and Jesus tells us this all over again. If God had decided to change his mind, Christ would have said so since He had a direct line.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: LeatherNLace


Actually it is about a cake; a normal, ordinary wedding cake....an inanimate object that cannot have a sexual orientation.


You've clearly never seen me eat cake... It's a passionate affair, especially Italian cream cake...



heh


edit on 8-7-2015 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun





Which would fail the moment the business opens their records and show that yes, in fact, they are overbooked.


Not any more than "we did not hire him because he's black, we did not hire him because he failed the exam," has worked to forestall anti-discrimination lawsuits. The actual truth has not stopped them before, why should it now?




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


Agreed. And "common decency" would include simply going elsewhere rather than starting a lawsuit. Why does "common decency" only get to be one way?




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.


No they are not. One is not obligated to service a political event--which goes back to my premise that discrimination is certainly allowed in the US as long as it's the right kind of discrimination.
Fair points, all.

But is a marriage a political event?


It certainly seems to have become one.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: LeatherNLace

But to the Bakers the Cake represented a spiritual connection with God Herself... Himself. that cake represented not only America's freedom, but World religion




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Stupid?
How about beyond dangerous?

Political correctness above the right to express an opinion.
You're next.




top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join