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: 23
59
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

No one said that there is. There is, however, a right to equal treatment before the laws. See the Fourteenth Amendment. (As well as arguably the Fifth.)


Sure, they have a right to go into the bakery and request a service, and so long as it does not go against the business' policies they can enter into contract. But the potential customers requested service that went against the business' policies so they were politely turned down.

If a straight couple would go into that bakery and request a cake for a gay civil union ceremony/celebration, they would likewise be turned down. Equal treatment.




posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Was the couple denied because of race, color, religion or national origin?

On a separate thought; why would one want to patronize a business that doesn't want to do business with them?


Good to see ya Gryph!



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu



If a straight couple would go into that bakery and request a cake for a gay civil union ceremony/celebration, they would likewise be turned down. Equal treatment.

LOL. I'd love to see that.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Does the baker quantify all of his customers according to how they are going to use the goods purchased from him?

You know, just to ascertain that none of these uses are going to conflict with his religious feelings?

If he doesn't, then in Colorado, he's picking and choosing the "sins" he has an issue with, which destroys the "legal practice of religion" argument. He is then pointedly breaking the laws in Colorado that forbid discrimination against sexual orientation (and other classes) in public accomodation.

It's simple, really.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: thov420

... it's a matter of the legal right to public accommodation.

The baker was depriving other citizens of this right because of their sexual orientation which is expressly forbidden by law in Colorado.




So this couple was denied a cake because this one baker wouldn't make it for them? Um, maybe find someone who would love to make them a cake and use their business instead. What's wrong with the free market and free association?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Teikiatsu
it's called common law MARRIAGE... I should know, I have one....
but no, I am going back further in time... before the catholic church grew in power.


Oh, if you're talking about man and woman being paired up sure thing. Marriage has universally been recognized throughout history as the union of man and woman/women (and sometimes men and woman, asian cultures I think?).



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu


did the business have this policy clearly stated somewhere in writing? if not, how are we supposed to know if it was indeed the business policy?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Does the baker quantify all of his customers according to how they are going to use the goods purchased from him?

You know, just to ascertain that none of these uses are going to conflict with his religious feelings?

If he doesn't, then in Colorado, he's picking and choosing the "sins" he has an issue with, which destroys the "legal practice of religion" argument. He is then pointedly breaking the laws in Colorado that forbid discrimination against sexual orientation (and other classes) in public accomodation.

It's simple, really.


Did he deny them a birthday cake, or other pastries?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

As I understand it, the baker told the customers that he wouldn't serve them on the basis of their sexual orientation, which is illegal in CO.

To answer your seperate thought, I personally would not. Anyone who is dumb enough to throw away the business of one of the common demographics with the largest disposable income is beyond me.

Good to see you JinMI as well.

edit on 4-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Did he deny them based on their sexual orientation?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: thov420
What's wrong with the free market and free association?


Nothing. However, in Colorado, there are laws regarding public accommodation.

If the baker had said "I'm not going to make a cake for you" and left it at that, there really wouldn't have been a case. However, he made it clear that it was a result of his opinion regarding their sexual orientation, and that is illegal (in CO.)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I checked the CO civil rights laws and you are correct. It is indeed a violation. However, this was a SCOTUS ruling and did this not go through CO's supreme court?
statelaws.findlaw.com...

Given the judges statement it would seem likely that the fed laws need addressing.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Which federal laws are those? (I'm interested in your idea.)

ADDED IN EDIT: I heard some rumbings that Illinois just ratified the ERA for goodness sake, bringing it to within one State of ratification.

Of course, Congress would have to extend the ratification period (it ended in 1982) but that would make questions like this even more interesting.
edit on 4-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JinMI

Anyone who is dumb enough to throw away the business of one of he common demographics with the largest disposable income is beyond me.


If I was the baker I would've made the cake as well. I'm not religious at all but even if I was, as a business owner, I'm in the business of making money. Anybody with money to spend would be a welcome customer. This business owner felt otherwise, which is stupid, but his right. Every bar I've ever been in has a sign that says the bartender has the right to refuse service to anybody for any reason. I totally agree with that sentiment.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 09:01 PM
link   











posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: thov420

But in CO, the bar would not have the right to deny service based on sexual orientation, as the bar is a place of public accommodation.

If they were in GA, they could certainly deny service on the basis of sexual orientation ... we don't have laws protecting us.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Did he deny them based on their sexual orientation?



Not that I have read. In fact, he had made birthday cakes and other pastries for gay clients. He only turned down a singular request to make one type of cake for an event that he did not want to participate in.

I have also read that he turns down offers for Halloween-themed cakes and other festivities that he associates with sinful or occult behaviors.

I found this excellent quote from the Alliance Defending Freedom:



It’s very easy to get caught up, and people do get caught up, in the idea that the case is just about a Christian cake artist who doesn’t want to create cakes supporting same-sex marriages, but the issue is much broader than that. If the government has the power to force Jack to create cakes and engage in artistic expression that violates his beliefs, it has that power over all of us. That’s why you can be for same-sex marriage, but you can also be for, and should be for, Jack Phillips to prevail in this case.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well if he did that, he's a moron. I still think they should have just moved on and found someone willing to make them a cake instead of suing, but I'm not big on confrontation anyways.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

It's my understanding that initially he made the statement that he didn't do cake for "gay weddings."

That's a statement of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

/shrug



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 09:06 PM
link   
While I do agree with not being forced to bake a cake I also always think of the what if. What if ALL the bakeries decided they didn't want to bake cakes for gay weddings than what!? I know it's hypothetical but still.
edit on 10790930Mon, 04 Jun 2018 21:07:30 -05000704America/ChicagoMon, 04 Jun 2018 21:07:30 -0500 by Nightrider83 because: Spelling



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join