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: 39
59
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: scrounger

The SCOTUS decision STATES that Colorado has a right to protect the civil rights of gay citizens. Perhaps you should read it?




posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The government (i.e. Colorado) did not define marriage in a religious sense in this matter.

Government didn't pass any laws which target anyone on religious grounds.

The Civil Rights Commission in the State overstepped the bounds of its mandate by attempting to rule on the relative merit of due process versus freedom of religion, rather than merely addressing rather blatant discimrination based on sexual oritentation. SCOTUS ruled narrowly for the baker on that basis and simultaneously stated that Colorado DOES have the right to prevent discrimnation against its citizens on the bases of race, religion, etc., AND sexual orientation.

As I've said, this is a great decision for both civil and religious rights. SCOTUS did extremely well.
edit on 6-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Could you favor us with the MORAL argument against making a cake for a reception?

Also, congratulations on your honesty in equating sexual orientation with pedophilia as well as reminding us again of the recent history of discrimnation based on sexual orientation in this country! Well done.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: scrounger

The SCOTUS decision STATES that Colorado has a right to protect the civil rights of gay citizens. Perhaps you should read it?


yes it did

tell me EXACTLY WHERE in that ruling that decorating a cake with a same sex theme is "the civil rights of gay citizens"?

because NOWHERE in that ruling is such a thing stated.
thus the baker won in HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of freedom of religion.
first amendment if you care "to read it".

just for my curiosity , how is a cake a civil right and how is it a "gay citizens" civil right?

Scrounger



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I dont think alien was saying pedos are same as gays.

all I got was how society can take something that was once considered immoral and just because the law says its legal doesn't change it to moral for some person/group/religion .

now (sorry of topic drift) SOME people and religions consider sex with children ok.
hence the MAMBLA organization and those religions that accept child brides.

now if (I consider pedo vile and always wrong and slim chance ever legal) say the law recognizes child brides and they wanted a wedding cake decorated in that theme if the baker considered it against their religious beliefs they would refuse.

the "couple" could sue just like they same sex couple did and the state could rule the same way they did for them with same arguments.

Now lets be clear...I AM NOT SAYING THE EXAMPLES GIVEN ARE SAME AS SAME SEX COUPLES.
the example he gave is what if something (as vile and disgusting as it is) that is viewed as morally wrong was made legal DOES NOT CHANGE the morality for a group , religion or people.

I think a different example could have been used like multiple partner marriage, but the idea is the same.

dont fall into the trap just because someone used an example it is saying that they are the same.

you could (know you havent just an example) have told me that I was equating nazi wanting swastika on a cake as same as same sex marriage.

Now on to how a color of a cake is morally wrong.

simple answer is if the baker is specifically asked to decorate the cake in something they are morally opposed to , be it same sex, swastika , confederate flag, adult theme, whatever then they are associated / name attached to that cake.

weither they really believe in what they put on it is (sadly) irrelevant.
right or wrong its theirs .

Honestly if it say were a confederate flag or swastika would those groups opposed to that just say "they were just giving what the customer would want" and let it go?

no in hell they would not...there would be protests, boycotts, ect.

now maybe with a same sex cake there would not be that.
but in there church and/or faith that would be wrong to them

overall lets again be honest

one you DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT to a specific cake theme be made for you

two ...the baker ONLY REFUSED TO DECORATE IN THAT THEME.
they were MORE THAN WILLING to sell them any cake pre made and most other themes if they desire AND TOLD THEM THAT.

three.... not getting a cake isnt gonna stop them from their rights...

Scrounger



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Doesn't mean that you would bake the cake anyway, but to be legislated to be forced to bake the cake, isn't freedom.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

That’s a very consistent argument.


Thank you... I think?


Here’s where it fails for me. Individual religious beliefs are utterly variable. if these are the prima facie political measure then the only possible result is anarchy.


Well, anarchy, yes... but the best kind of anarchy! As long as folks keep their anarchy to themselves. We can do for ourselves and by ourselves and to ourselves. But ONLY for and to ourselves. (And other consenting adults, of course).


My take is that The Founders were wise to keep it simple: government can’t establish religion; government can’t restrict the free exercise thereof. However, religion is not higher than the law


Definitely religion is not higher than the law... but we need to differentiate between religion as an organized and hierarchical institution created by man ---> codified laws and an organized and hierarchical institution created by man ---> and the law's of nature and nature's God which are the ultimate law and the ultimate spirituality which are created by I don't know exactly but I know it's not man!!!

The latter takes precedence over the former two. And, indeed, the former two should in fact be in accordance with and complement for latter.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 04:28 AM
link   
This has nothing at all to do with the 1st Amendment or Religious Liberty. A gay couple wanted to bash a Christian. It was a hate crime and the baker should sue.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 04:58 AM
link   
cool guide provide than sir



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

The line is drawn at “I refuse to served you because you are *”

You are welcome to purchase other products in the store or be a customer here, but you can’t force someone to make something because you want them to



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
is this really what they ordered??? a rainbow? the baker objected to decorating it with a rainbow?
gee, guess I better not go there is I want to order a cake with a cute little unicorn under a rainbow cake for my grand daughters 6th birthday then, huh???



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: scrounger

Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)



The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___, ___. While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.


As I have said several times here, the decision protected the civil rights of both parties. The Commission made a direct mistake by trying to parse out the equal rights of due process and religious expression as well as making derrogatory comments toward Phillips' religious, and the SCOTUS corrected them. Essentially, it would have been fine to enforce the public accomodation laws, but it's not fine to do so by claiming that is superior to religious belief.

Essentially all civil rights are co-equal in strength.
edit on 6-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I can't speak to the superiority of your "ulitmate" law because to me that is an expression of random chance (which, I might argue, could be seen to make things even more beautiful and eloquent, but I digress, LOL) but what I can agree with is the essence of your statement, that there are innate rights that we have as sentient beings that are only recognized, not bestowed, by our legal systems.

PS: I was complementing your argument.

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



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Fox 31 Denver - July 30, 2012



It all started when Dave Mullins, 28, and Charlie Craig, 31, went into the Masterpiece Cakeshop hoping to get a rainbow-layered cake with teal and red frosting for their wedding reception, which will take place in Denver this October after their wedding in Provincetown, Mass., which is set for September.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 07:24 AM
link   
I'm about to be "out of here" but I did want to state clearly that this decision, hopefully, is an early indicator of a trend that will grow and continue, that being, that we remember that we are are all Americans and that we are stronger together rather than divided.

America's Constitution is a unique document that does an excellent job of preserving all of our rights within governmental structures that are balanced against each other in power.

The baker DOES have a right, an ultimate right, to believe as he does that "gay marriage" is sinful. However, in the operatoin of a public business (which he CHOSE TO OPEN) he does not have the right to offer products to some classes of the public and not others. That's just not the way our legal system works. He has to realize that in the wedding cake business, sometimes, you have customers that you don't agree with. Further, I believe he could have said "I am not going to make the cake you describe because I find it offensive" and that would be a statement of his rights of expresssion (in this case, of non-expression), however, he cannot then state that it's because of the sexual orientation of the buyers ... because that's a violation of their civil rights.

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



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

pretty cake... had to look it up to find out what a rainbow layered cake was...
I'd refuse to make it just because it looks like a pain in the neck to make with it's 7 layers...lol...
I guess maybe the objectionable "artistic expression" isn't known then since, well, although the frosting color choices might sound a little weird to some of us... I still don't see anything objectionable with what they wanted.. it also doesn't sound like he would have sold them a premade cake... he just wasn't gonna sell them a cake once he learned that it was being used for a gay wedding reception.

kind of like a man walks into a store for some rope and tells the clerk that he intends on using it haul a big boulder out of his field this sunday... and the clerk then decides that hey, I can't sell you this rope, you are planning breaking the laws of the sabbath with it...

guess we all need to stop being so chatty with the people selling us stuff till the insanity passes.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Could you favor us with the MORAL argument against making a cake for a reception?

Also, congratulations on your honesty in equating sexual orientation with pedophilia as well as reminding us again of the recent history of discrimnation based on sexual orientation in this country! Well done.


I didn’t equate the two, I was showing people that just as most people see pedophilia as amoral just as many also see homosexuality as amoral.

Some people are raised to believe in and become deeply rooted in certain morals and ethics, lots of these morals and ethics come from their religion. For some of these people, knowingly making a cake for a same sex couple would be the same as condoning the marriage that they see as amoral and therefore breaking their own moral code. Forcing someone to break their moral code is wrong.

It wouldn’t hurt the married couple If the cake maker didn’t make their cake because they could just have someone else make their cake or make it themselves. However if we were to force the cake maker to break their moral code by baking that cake then it can be argued that it would definitely be damaging to their psyche and their reputation, and to many very devoted religious people even threaten their very salvation.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

but then can this be transferred over to other areas of commerce like rental agreements. could gays, or any other group that those who own those rental units decide aren't living to their moral standards decide to not to rent to them? could a group of those owners join together in agreement in an attempt to herd them into the crappiest neighborhoods? and, what if the group manages to get control of all the rental units and just decide they don't want this or that group in their city?

I've already mentioned one area where harm is already being done because of personal beliefs, the catholic hospital system.

www.propublica.org...

they've grown so rapidly and now, they might be the only alternative a person has when seeking medical care.
so excuse me if I don't buy the "oh, but they can just buy their cake down the street"... bit.. the arguments supporting the right to deny gay wedding cakes seem to be only supporting the arguments for "morality" to interfere with things that are much more important.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Very interesting discussion because it is walking all kinds of thin lines imo.

I think the fact that some bring up, that the baker does sell all kinds of other goods to gay couples, is detrimental to the baker's own position and defense. If the couple just buy a generic cake instead and state before purchasing it that it will be the centerpiece at their wedding ceremony, would the baker still sell that which he himself stated he would sell them? No more "custom order".

For me he basically has no right answer to this. If yes, he sells, then he's violating his own beliefs by "participating in the event" and counters his own defence. If not then he's discriminating them.


On the wedding part, am I right in assuming that in America you only have 1 wedding ceremony to be married in the eyes of the law ?

In my country if you want to get married you make an appointment with the mayor of your town/city of residence to do so. When the date arrives and after some paperwork is done, you both go to city-hall with your respective witnesses, generally 1 for each party but more can be allowed, where the mayor then proclaims you married, everybody signs the marriage-act and that's it, you are now a married couple.

You then have the added option to marry for your faith in whatever respective religious building you frequent or choose. This is mostly planned to be on the same date, but normally always comes 2nd. If you choose this option this is mostly where most people will gather to celebrate your wedding. However doing this has no single relation to the law, it's just for you personally and your religious community as such.


My personal take on this blown up ordeal is that firstly it shouldn't even have gotten to court. Besides that, it rests on what you catogorize the item being sold as. If a cake would be deemed a luxury item I would be all for government standardised signage, letting people know who you sell your non-essential items to beforehand would make society responsible for not using your services. I can pretty confidently say that such a business over here would not last a long life anymore.

A cake being food however makes it pretty much part of an essential chain of products, as such it should not be able to be denied to anyone abiding by our current societal rules of respectfull common conduct or based on gender, sexuality, beliefs, religion etc. This, paired with the fact that the baker chose to open an establishment in the public domain and thus profits from tax payed infrastructure makes me believe he just should have baked the non-offensive rainbow cake.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Back to respond since you did me the courtesy of a response.

You did not make the statement "pedophila and homosexuality are the same thing." Granted. Further, under consideration, perhaps you are unaware of decades of folks equating homosexuality and pedophila. Were you unaware of that connection?

Was pedophila really your only thought for what others find immoral to compare with homosexualty? The "moral" objections to homosexuality are based on illicit physical coupling ... so wouldn't a better comparison in regard to the morals of "average" folks be to something like, say ... adultery?

Does the baker also test his customers for adultery? Fornication? Lustful thoughts? (All equally forbidden in Christianity.)

Would he hold the same alleged religious concerns in providing products to adulterers and fornicators and the lustful as he does to, what was the old term ... catamites? Do you think he refuses to do business with people that are divorced, or who lie, steal, etc?

If not, why not?

You don't know what the "hurt" experienced by the couple was (and neither do I.) Further, it's irrelvant. In Colorado, discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal. The baker stated plainly that his restriction was based on the sexuality of the couple requesting the product (I have linked the reference multiple times.)

He chose an illegal act. As a business owner, he should realize that he cannot discriminate against the kind of customers he serves. If he chooses to do so, he pays the penalty. It's not a matter of the State forcing him to act (as he didn't make the cake ordered.) It is a matter of the State's establishment of laws that protect the rights of all citizens that don't target a religion. The Antidiscrimination Act does not target a religion.

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







 
59
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join