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.

 

You Don't Have to Bake a Gay Cake - SCOTUS

page: 15
59
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I wanted my husband there to taste test samples of different kinds of possible cake batter. We chose Italian cream cake. I know several couples who went through the same process.




posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

He was willing to sell to them. He just wasn't going to do a specific design. Wheres the religious test in that?


(post by CriticalStinker removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)
(post by bender151 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: bender151

Holy hyperbole!



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 02:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   
The customers were told that the business wouldn't serve them because they were gay. Sexual orientation is a protected class in CO. Therefore, the business was challenged on that basis.

Colorado (specifically, the committee that hears these cases) acted in such a way as to attack the business based on the religious beliefs of the owner ... that is unconstitutional.

No, business owners "can't do anything they want." They are members of society like the rest of us.

If a public business doens't want to serve the public, then the business should become a private club.

The SCOTUS ruling that is, at best, the nominal topic of this discussion is a win for civil rights. No one should be attacked because of their religion (or their lack of one.) Colorado did that and was corrected.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Edumakated




Thoughts?


My thoughts. SCOTUS didn't rule in favor of the baker's discriminatory actions, clearing the way for others. SCOTUS ruled that the commission was hostile to the baker's religious claim for blaming the cake baker for, essentially, the Holocaust! NEVER INVOKE THE HOLOCAUST!



The case's outcome hinged on the actions of the Colorado commission. In one exchange at a 2014 hearing cited by Kennedy, former commissioner Diann Rice said that "freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust."



Yeah this is exactly what the ruling was about, not a promotion of discrimination. Knee-jerkers in here would suggest otherwise though.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


You phrased it a lot better than I have.




posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Please Review -



15b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums on the Websites, and will neither Post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content. You will also not use common alternative spellings or net-speak alternative for profane words.


Do not reply to this post.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Had I been the baker in such a case, I would have "gladly" baked the cake after the court had mandated me to do so. This would have saved a lot of time, fuss, and money.

Of course, when the customer found out I was not a very good cake baker, it would be too late to get another one made.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 03:20 PM
link   
All of this talk about cakes is making me hungry for a big slice of one.
I did pick a bad day to go back on my diet!



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

As usual you don't understand the basics of the constitution.

Jaden



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You're right,Jews and Christians don't own the rainbow...
God owns the rainbow and everything else!



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Gryphon66

As usual you don't understand the basics of the constitution.

Jaden

So explain.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: dug88
Personally....I wouldn't even want to eat a cake someone was forced to make for me against their wishes...that #'s not gonna be very good..I'm sure very little effort would've been made for that cake and they probably enjoyed whatever cake they end up did getting better anyway.

How is this a #ing issue?...if someone doesn't want to serve you....for any reason honestly....just go somewhere else....why would you want service of any kind from someone that doesn't want to do it? That's just #ing stupid and asking to have #ty service anyway.

This reminds me of people who get upset because their friends don't talk to them or don't answer messages...if someone doesn't want to associate with you....even if they're ignorant #s...it's pointless getting upset about it...just move on...


Obviously these people have not seen the feature film Waiting.
One does not mess with the people preparing their food.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarPig1939
a reply to: RowanBean


Funny thing is Muslims say the same thing and no one is complaining. Or do people have a bias against Christianity that much? I wonder.




You hit the nail on that one! One religion is protected the other is up for grabs.I won't say
which one,I don't want to be labeled a racist or told I have a phobia.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You're right,Jews and Christians don't own the rainbow...
God owns the rainbow and everything else!


So, if rainbows, rain and sunshine fall on everyone, why withhold cakes from some?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   
So, I take it the idea of free market is dead then?

Not globally, but from this thread it seems the consensus here on ATS is we don't truly believe in a free market. Free market is an idea that can't really work, it would seem, because any way you look at it the government will need to step in and set rules, because people can't self-govern and the market won't weed out the bad owners and those who discriminate?

So, is free market anything more than an idea?

I'm really asking here, because this thread contradicts what many say in other threads when it comes to free market. So, when I bring up the idea of allowing everything as long as it's disclosed - people don't like the signs on doors. I don't either, but that would be free market. And if the society is truly above racism and discrimination, as many claim, those shops would die out and give rise to new ones that don't discriminate.

What gives?

Can a market regulate itself or does it need government authority?



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join