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.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DJW001
I do not believe that you can refuse to serve someone based on their religion. I believe that is settled in judicial precedence.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
The Red Hen refused service because they disliked Sanders and her beliefs. That is a matter of persecution.
They found her actions, such as justifying breaking families apart and imprisoning innocent children, violated their sense of decency. That is a matter of conscience. By your own standards, that means it is not "persecution."
per·se·cu·tion
ˌpərsəˈkyo͞oSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.
"her family fled religious persecution"
synonyms: oppression, victimization, maltreatment, ill-treatment, mistreatment, abuse, ill-usage, discrimination, tyranny; More
So then the bakery was persecuting the gay couple?
No, you forcing the Christian to violate his religious beliefs is persecution.
Why is baking a cake violating his religious beliefs?
He explicitly stated why, and these reasons are freely available.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: DJW001
Again, the bakers did not want their wedding cakes in a gay wedding. If the gay couple was buying a cake for a heterosexual wedding, or if they wanted some other product, they would have continued the transaction. That is a matter of conscience. The Red Hen refused service because they disliked Sanders and her beliefs. That is a matter of persecution.
Wrong.
The Red Hen had started serving Sanders. They then asked her to leave. The rest of her party left of their own will, and The Red Hen didn't charge them anything.
The baker never even started serving.
The two situations are distinctly different. The baker refused gays (a category), ergo discrimination. The Red Hen refused Sarah Sanders (a person), ergo they don't like Sarah Sanders.
He didn’t refuse gays. He refused to have his cake used in an event that violated his conscience.
originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
Business have the right to refuse service for any reason unless its a protected class.
Maybe the owner didnt want the hassle of other customers getting heated with the newcomers.
Just looking after his own interests.
I thought that was a "big thing" for Americans ..freedom to run your business how you like
Stephanie Wilkinson, a co-owner of a restaurant who refused to serve Press Secretary Sarah Sanders on Friday reportedly cited morality and living up to "certain standards” as the reason why is now under fire. The Historic Downtown Lexington Virginia Facebook page has a poll up asking "Should Stephanie Wilkinson of Main Street Lexington be able to keep her position as Director?" and it appear to be unanimous that Wilkinson should step down. As of this writing, 95% call for the Red Hen owner to step down as Director of Main Street Lexington.
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: DJW001
Ever heard the saying if you remove GOD from the country then he will turn your country into hell.
Stop look around here it comes...
Likely he would get some orange tinted person to finish off the job.
Finally! A "Trump is the Antichrist" post!
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Sookiechacha
Any excuse, right?
Good grief, people.
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: tinner07
So two wrongs is the way it works now, eh?
Way to show your superiority. The Presidents a rude SOB upon occasion, so it's OK for me to be. That's the new rule now?
Tryin' to keep up here. I was always taught that two wrongs never make a right...?
originally posted by: xuenchen
BwaaaaaHaHaHa
Share the Misery.
BREAKING: Owner of Red Hen restaurant gets bad news from Historic Lexington
Stephanie Wilkinson, a co-owner of a restaurant who refused to serve Press Secretary Sarah Sanders on Friday reportedly cited morality and living up to "certain standards” as the reason why is now under fire. The Historic Downtown Lexington Virginia Facebook page has a poll up asking "Should Stephanie Wilkinson of Main Street Lexington be able to keep her position as Director?" and it appear to be unanimous that Wilkinson should step down. As of this writing, 95% call for the Red Hen owner to step down as Director of Main Street Lexington.
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Sookiechacha
Your refusal to do your job is sufficient reason.
originally posted by: Xenogears
originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
Business have the right to refuse service for any reason unless its a protected class.
Maybe the owner didnt want the hassle of other customers getting heated with the newcomers.
Just looking after his own interests.
I thought that was a "big thing" for Americans ..freedom to run your business how you like
So they are allowed to refuse whites, but not any other race? How about that's some racist BS.
originally posted by: Xenogears
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: DJW001
Again, the bakers did not want their wedding cakes in a gay wedding. If the gay couple was buying a cake for a heterosexual wedding, or if they wanted some other product, they would have continued the transaction. That is a matter of conscience. The Red Hen refused service because they disliked Sanders and her beliefs. That is a matter of persecution.
Wrong.
The Red Hen had started serving Sanders. They then asked her to leave. The rest of her party left of their own will, and The Red Hen didn't charge them anything.
The baker never even started serving.
The two situations are distinctly different. The baker refused gays (a category), ergo discrimination. The Red Hen refused Sarah Sanders (a person), ergo they don't like Sarah Sanders.
He didn’t refuse gays. He refused to have his cake used in an event that violated his conscience.
Don't know, but they probably also wanted a custom made cake with two men on top.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
The Red Hen refused service because they disliked Sanders and her beliefs. That is a matter of persecution.
They found her actions, such as justifying breaking families apart and imprisoning innocent children, violated their sense of decency. That is a matter of conscience. By your own standards, that means it is not "persecution."
per·se·cu·tion
ˌpərsəˈkyo͞oSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.
"her family fled religious persecution"
synonyms: oppression, victimization, maltreatment, ill-treatment, mistreatment, abuse, ill-usage, discrimination, tyranny; More
So then the bakery was persecuting the gay couple?
No, you forcing the Christian to violate his religious beliefs is persecution.
Why is baking a cake violating his religious beliefs?
He explicitly stated why, and these reasons are freely available.
“it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”
“The commission’s hostility [to Phillips and his religious beliefs] was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote. “Phillips was entitled to a neutral decision-maker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection.”
"The outcome of other cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” said Kennedy, who has authored most of the court’s most significant gay rights cases. “These disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious belief, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”
“This cake is a specific cake, a wedding cake is an inherently religious event and the cake is definitely a specific message,” Phillips said, explaining his objection to making the wedding cake for the same-sex wedding.
Kennedy dismissed this argument. “Few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise in protected speech.”