Lakewood (Colorado) Cake Shop Refuses Wedding Cake To Gay Couple.

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

The owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood refused to bake a wedding cake for a local gay couple and now people are pushing a boycott against the owner.

LINK

Its a personal wish of a shop owner. Why the big stink? I can just imagine the 2012 election stir and sorting the priorities of the incumbents its going to cause in Colorado with the latest incident of the movie house shootings and now this piece of news.

Thoughts/Comments/Viewpoints/Opinions por favor



+7 more 
posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 


We had lunch at Chick-Fil-A yesterday, and I ate there on Friday night as I was travelling also.

Not because I disagree with gay marriage, I am actually in favor of gay marriage (although I think "marriage" should be done in a church, and they should create a legal union for any couple gay or not, that wants to form a partnership outside of a church). Anyway, in this day and age, procreation is not the concern it used to be, so marriages are not for the same intents and purposes they used to be.

Anyhow, back to the point, I am against all these people trying to force their wills on other people. I think Chick-Fil-A will benefit from this backlash, just like they benefit from being closed on Sundays, and hiring competent people instead of punks.

I think this cake shoppe will probably benefit from this backlash, and seeing as how they don't want gay customers, then a gay boycott seems to be exactly what they want anyway.
What a stupid way to show your discontent. "OH, so you don't want us as customers, then fine, we won't be your customers."


The boycott will just bring them more attention from the customers they DO want, so it works in their favor.


+8 more 
posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
- The privately owned cake shop can service whoever they wish, right? I'm pretty sure that they have a right to refuse service if they want.

- At the same time, those who aren't happy with how the cake shop is run have a right to call for a boycott.

Side note - never complain about those who are handling your food.
You don't know what goes on in the kitchen when you aren't watching.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 


I guess it's the shop owners right to refuse a MASSIVE chunk of income because he doesn't like their lifestyle.

I think it's silly and absurd, but reading the article, I'm also gonna go out on a limb and suggest the gay couple already knew about his stance and did this knowing full well what the outcome would be.

That doesn't make it ok for me though.

I wonder, if the man refused to produce a wedding cake for a black couple, what the ATS feeling would be. What about a couple that wanted the little plastic figures to be holding AK47s?

You make cakes dude, make them a damn cake. And the people specifically buying from him based alone on his stance on gay marriage.... WTF?



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





although I think "marriage" should be done in a church, and they should create a legal union for any couple gay or not, that wants to form a partnership outside of a church


I'm straight. I'm married. It was not done in a church, there was no religious aspect to it at all. Does that mean I have a civil union?

If marriage is to be a "church" only thing, and we know which church you mean, then the government should step away from it, there should be no tax benefits awarded what so ever.

But, as long as there is an economic benefit, and the government is involved, the founding documents of your country demand that all have equal access to it.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 



I wonder, if the man refused to produce a wedding cake for a black couple, what the ATS feeling would be. What about a couple that wanted the little plastic figures to be holding AK47s?


My personal view would be exactly the same as it is for the gay couple, but the ATS view, and legal view would be different. A black couple could sue and win, and probably end up shutting down the cake shop. It happened big time to Denny's, but of course they were a national franchise, but you can't refuse service based on race, even though you have a right to refuse service to anyone, anytime. I never understood that, but I know it won't fly.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I often wonder if there are more profits to be had by keeping your mouth shut and providing your service/product or by taking some ludicrous position.

As a customer I do say I avoid spending any money in anti-gun businesses and avoid products of companies who donate to various anti-gun causes.

But am I outnumbered by the people who intentionally spend money in these places because of their politics?

Or do most people just not care until it's an issue that affects them personally?



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
'It wasn’t the first time the shop turned down gay couples who wanted a cake. Phillips has received more than 1,000 angry messages about his stance'

'Some customers said they are now ordering cakes at the shop specifically because of the stance against gay marriage.'

They're the lines from the article that stand out to me. Almost like it was all a big publicity stunt, and not on behalf of the cake shop.

His business, his choice.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





although I think "marriage" should be done in a church, and they should create a legal union for any couple gay or not, that wants to form a partnership outside of a church


I'm straight. I'm married. It was not done in a church, there was no religious aspect to it at all. Does that mean I have a civil union?

If marriage is to be a "church" only thing, and we know which church you mean, then the government should step away from it, there should be no tax benefits awarded what so ever.

But, as long as there is an economic benefit, and the government is involved, the founding documents of your country demand that all have equal access to it.


Mine was done outside a church also, although there was a preacher doing the ceremony.

My answer is that if someone wants to form a legal partnership to get the government benefits, then it is a business transaction. They should file the proper paperwork to form the partnership, and that paperwork would provide them tax benefits, next-of-kin status, healthcare decision making, etc. It shouldn't matter if they are straight or homo, and it shouldn't matter if they are young or old, same-sex, or opposite, etc. If we created that right, then it would benefit homosexual partners and it would benefit old ladies living together taking care of each other, and it would benefit good buddies like the movie "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry." It would take all the dishonesty out of it.

The original reason governments catered to young heterosexual couples was for procreation. They wanted new tax-payers and new soldiers, so they gave incentives to people who could get together and have babies. These days, that incentive is just silly. Half the babies are born out of wedlock, some are in-vitro, gay couples are adopting, the whole situation is completely different than it used to be, so the need to restrict it to young heterosexual couples is gone.

BUT, the Tradition of "marriage" in a church, by a preacher, for the purpose of beginning a new life, as a couple is still alive and well. I think we should let the churches keep that tradition. Give them the word, make it a spiritual word, and completely separate it from the legal partnership.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters

I wonder, if the man refused to produce a wedding cake for a black couple, what the ATS feeling would be. What about a couple that wanted the little plastic figures to be holding AK47s?



Mine would be exactly the same. His business, his choice.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I often wonder if there are more profits to be had by keeping your mouth shut and providing your service/product or by taking some ludicrous position.

As a customer I do say I avoid spending any money in anti-gun businesses and avoid products of companies who donate to various anti-gun causes.

But am I outnumbered by the people who intentionally spend money in these places because of their politics?

Or do most people just not care until it's an issue that affects them personally?


Precisely!

Everyone is a slave to convenience, to a lesser or greater extent. Most of us can preach whatever agenda we hold dear (environment, personal accountability, sexual orientation, etc.) until the cows come home, but only if it REALLY hits home do most of us actually take a stand on the issue and speak with our wallets/time.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 


Explanation : S&F!

I am reminded of this similar issue thread from almost 2yrs ago ...

Indianapolis Bakery Refuses To Bake Gay Cupcakes (by hotbakedtater posted on 30-9-2010 @ 06:00 AM) [ATS]

Personal Disclosure: I am also reminded of Kinky Freidmans song ... "We reserve to the right to refuse services unto you" ... and how in the USA, being land of the free [cough cough cough :shk: ], that is perfectly aok AS LONG AS they are quite open to being freely sued for discrimination ... which in this case I am quite sure they would lose!



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Sexual Orientation is not a protected class yet. The lawsuit would fail. Discrimination laws are very specific. Now, if this were a "hate-crime," then sexual orientation is a protected class, but not when it comes to business.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Side note - never complain about those who are handling your food. You don't know what goes on in the kitchen when you aren't watching.

I say this to my wife all the time. All I can think about is the scene from the movie 'Road Trip' where the guy asks for some salt on his bread


I saw you started a related thread 'Gay Marriage' and politics. I somehow think that such cake shop incidents happened several times in the past but now its getting more coverage due to 2012.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 

You can't change your race, but you can choose who you sleep with. Equating denying service to people of a differing sexual orientation vs color of your skin as the same is absurd. There are plenty of cake shops that would accommodate them I'm sure. For the shop owner, it might be like asking them to go against their religion and belief system. I would equate it to asking a a muslim to make a cake praising praising Jesus.
(Not religious BTW) I am starting to think the gays will do anything for attention, it's getting old.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by hp1229
 


We had lunch at Chick-Fil-A yesterday, and I ate there on Friday night as I was travelling also.

Not because I disagree with gay marriage, I am actually in favor of gay marriage


I agree, GRA. I was bashed for sharing a "support Chik-fil-A" graphic on Facebook recently.

I believe that businesses have the right to have a religious foundation and express their beliefs through free speech. I also believe that people should be able to love who they love. Just because they disagree with gay marriage and I support their right to say that it doesnt mean I don't support gay marriage... I just support free speech and freedom of religion as well and believe boycotting a company doesn't help anyone unless it gets something done. Boycotting because of their stance on Gay Marriage will not change anything..



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by cassiper
 


Exactly.

And it wasn't as if Chic Fil A was turning away gay customers, or refusing benefits, or breaking any laws, it was just a personal opinion of the same guy that turned around the corporation based on people-friendly, spiritual-based ideals. He has been praised repeatedly in the business community as well as the religious community for putting people first in his organization, and creating a very successful business model in the process.

I've never once talked to anyone specifically about eating at Chick Fil A, but this week I've heard my office abuzz with people making it a point to go there for either lunch or dinner.

Here in my town, they also have a very good community outreach program that supports my kids school, so we've gone there many times for school functions and such, and their customer service is always top-notch, and my order is always right. The experience of shopping at Chick Fil A compared to McDonald's or Taco bell is like buying a Mercedes Benz at a Kia price. It is on a whole other level compared to typical fast food, so the CEO is doing something very right.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere


I often wonder if there are more profits to be had by keeping your mouth shut and providing your service/product or by taking some ludicrous position.
It all depends on how much a person values their standards and social responsibilities. Money isn't everything for many people. And yes, I think most people just do not care until it affects them personally.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join