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: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

It is entirely about serving gays, he has nothing to do with the wedding.

He is just making a cake for them.

Which has nothing to do with decorating.

Again the facts matter.




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

It is entirely about serving gays, he has nothing to do with the wedding.

He is just making a cake for them.

Which has nothing to do with decorating.

Again the facts matter.


So is there proof that he never served any other gays? Or is it just the ones who came asking him to bake a wedding cake for their gay wedding?

If the former, maybe you're right. He has a problem with gays. If the latter, maybe he has a problem baking a cake for a ceremony he considers sacrilege and doesn't want to participate in.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

So, in the Genesis quote, I don't see any variation on:

"And god said ..."

So ... YHVH didn't actually say that did he? It's just "God's Word."

Right?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you are calling Jesus a liar? He did say that God said it.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

First time, second time, it's still discrimination, and illegal by their State Law



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdAstra
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Stupid?
How about beyond dangerous?

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




Political correctness or State law?

I mean, doesn't Oregon have the same Rights as all the other States? You know, as in State's Rights?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

It is about something he doesn't agree to, a cake for a gay wedding, he doesn't believe in gay marriage as many religious people don't.

As I said, the other articles are about specific decoration or for specific purpose, like kkk meetings.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you are calling Jesus a liar? He did say that God said it.



I'm assuming that, mythologically speaking, Jesus and YHVH had many conversations we aren't privy to, just logically.

Look at what your quotes say specifically: Jesus doesn't say "and god said" and neither does Genesis.

Look at what the text says rather than what you believe it says.

EDIT: Oh, and to quote something you have said: Stop deflecting.
edit on 14Wed, 08 Jul 2015 14:54:12 -050015p022015766 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:54 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 is now, it seems.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Sremmos80

It is about something he doesn't agree to, a cake for a gay wedding, he doesn't believe in gay marriage as many religious people don't.

As I said, the other articles are about specific decoration or for specific purpose, like kkk meetings.


So, merchants now decide how customers can use the wares they buy in a store?

What kind of mercantilistic tyranny are you fronting for here???



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

It is entirely about serving gays, he has nothing to do with the wedding.

He is just making a cake for them.

Which has nothing to do with decorating.

Again the facts matter.


So is there proof that he never served any other gays? Or is it just the ones who came asking him to bake a wedding cake for their gay wedding?

If the former, maybe you're right. He has a problem with gays. If the latter, maybe he has a problem baking a cake for a ceremony he considers sacrilege and doesn't want to participate in.



I think this is the problem, people are not seeing the distinction between serving a gay client, and providing materials to a ceremony one doesn't support.

There is a distinction.

One is discrimination, one is a constitutionally protected act of religious belief.

If a baker, doesn't want to provide materials to a function or ceremony they feel violates their faith they shouldn't be forced to. Nor should they have their livelihood destroyed over it. The couple should grow up and goto a different baker. If a baker, is refusing service to every gay person who walks thru the door, they should be prosecuted under the appropriate laws. That is open discrimination.

Neither side will come to a resolve on this though. As one side pushes harder, the other side will push back with equal force ; And in the end everyone looks silly.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

The KKK cake didn't happen, just stop with it.
I have shown you that it was a satirical story.

I agree with not making specific decoration, but that is not the context of the OP or many of the other cases where they were outright refused service all together.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.



Okay, I can see them as reasonable points. I guess I would humbly suggest that currently the situation in the US is more the former than the latter. Law of unintended consequences. We see it all of the time--firefighter's test scores to different sets of scores to get into university to awful employees who can never be fired and recently, just down the road, the local mom & pop who got sued by one of those lawsuit seeking attorneys because their bathroom in their tiny shop did not meet all of the requirements for accessibility. They could neither afford to remodel nor pay the attorney so they folded. How did that help anyone, much less "the public?"



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Sremmos80

It is about something he doesn't agree to, a cake for a gay wedding, he doesn't believe in gay marriage as many religious people don't.

As I said, the other articles are about specific decoration or for specific purpose, like kkk meetings.


So, merchants now decide how customers can use the wares they buy in a store?

What kind of mercantilistic tyranny are you fronting for here???


If I go into a hardware store, and express I intend to huff this can of paint ; I'd like the merchant to be able to refuse the sale...



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I did.

“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’?

The presence of single quotes indicates that Christ is quoting the Creator, quoting God (or YHVH if you prefer). The person who said according to Christ is God, and what was said is "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. That is a marriage as the topic being discussed is divorce. Jesus is first defining marriage and what it is. He goes on to explain why you can't divorce. In this case it is because God joins man to woman as one flesh and what God joins may not be put asunder.

Yes, that means divorce is a big problem, too. Unless one of the partners commits adultery, divorce should not be permitted.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

In the scenario you're positing, does the merchant get to ask what their products are going to be used for, and base their decision to do business or not on that answer?

THAT'S going to slow things down in the grocery line ... sheesh.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I'll answer your question when you answer mine on why these religious people just sticking to what they believe in are able to pick and choose what in the book they are against.

You have cleared up the OT applies to all christians, lots of rules in that one.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Sadly for christians, christianity did not invent marriage, as such they can only define religious marriage by their own faith. Which means they have no religious reason not to make a cake for anyone not having a christian wedding.

Alas christianity does not own the term marriage, did not invent it, and has no right to complain about anyone not getting married within the confines of their religion.

A secular marriage has literally no bearing on their religious beliefs what so ever.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Are you kidding me?

Jesus is not quoting "the Creator" he's quoting Genesis for goodness sake! That's why the part that you conveniently snipped out says "HAVE YOU NOT READ..."

In neither case does Jesus say "marriage is only between a man and a woman" nor does your god YHVH say "marriage is only between a man and a woman."

That is your interpretation, not what the text says. In your zeal, you're misrepresenting what your holy book says.

Divorce is not just "a big problem." Jesus is answering the question "can people get divorced anytime they want to" and His SPECIFIC answer is "what God has joined let no man put asunder."

You can try to semantically weasel all you want; the Book says what it says.



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

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: 9thWatcher
Revelation 2:10
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.


It's so nice that Christians have a catch-all so they don't have to take responsibility for their awfulness. "We don't have to change our ways! See! It's predicted in our book that we will be persecuted for our beliefs!"


It's interesting to me how NOBODY hammering Christians on this will do the same to Muslims in this country. Why is that? Why aren't gay people targeting their businesses? Why isn't the media? There is a clear agenda afoot and it has NOTHING to do with equality.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join