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.

 

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

page: 10
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


The difference between Ladie's Night is that it is completely voluntary.
Being discriminated against is not.




posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


The difference between Ladie's Night is that it is completely voluntary.
Being discriminated against is not.


Its not voluntary which cupcake shop you choose?

The reason a discrimination lawsuit for a consumer is so difficult is because it is voluntary. Nobody is making that person shop at that location. If they don't like the policies, then they should shop elsewhere. Nobody is forcing them to go in the door and get discriminated against.

Employment and Housing are different circumstances, and I see why we have the laws we have, but choosing where to shop is not something that should be regulated.

What if I just don't like assholes? And some asshole comes into my store, being a jerk, and I refuse to serve him. Isn't that my right? What if I don't like SUV drivers because they are ruining the planet, or I don't like people that wear Nike's because they're made in Malaysia with child-labor. I have every right to discriminate on who I choose to do business with or not do business with.

What if homosexuals refuse to shop at Chick-Fil-A, because the CEO is overly religious, isn't that discrimination? Shouldn't we FORCE them to spend money there?



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
Are red haired people a "protected class"??? Does that make it right and should it make it legal to discriminate against them???



Maybe I don't want to serve red-headed people, because I knew a red-headed bully in Jr. High school, and I name my business "No Gingers" and I conduct it the way I please. Why would that be disgusting? My business will either sink or swim on its own merits, I've been honest in my approach, why is it anybody else's business what I do?
Precisely. Businesses have signs 'No shoes, no shirt, no service' does this mean every beach bum from venice beach will feel discriminated?



How is it any different than Ladie's Night at a bar? They make the guys pay $20 or more at the door, and then pay $5 to $15 per drink, but the women get in free and drink free? Isn't that "disgusting behavior?" Isn't it taking advantage of one group and exploiting another?
Precisely. Women are used as a tool to improve the business by attracting more men since they expect more women to be there at the bar since its free or discounted cover charge/drinks
However most women dont care since it doesn't cost them as much as the men does but in reality, they're being used as a marketing tool to attract the male customers who actually spend more money on average then women.
edit on 1-8-2012 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



What is the "disgusting behavior?"


If you honestly need to ask that question...then I know exactly what your mindset is and there is really no need in continuing the conversation.

I know Ron Paul's libertarian fantasy that excuses discrimination because "businesses will fail if they do"...but it's just an excuse to be racist, sexist, and homophobic.

If you honestly don't see what is wrong with discrimination...then it is because you have a mindset that you agree with it.

Luckily...society is advancing faster than the few individuals that are clinging on to old beliefs and practices.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I'm old enough to have watched the social evolution of race discrimination.

I'm now watching the same thing happen with LGBTQ.

Discrimination for whatever reason - - is just ugly - - and not really acceptable anymore.

As the next generation matures - - excuses will not cut it. Even religious excuses.

I've seen a significant shift in positive support of LGBTQ - - especially in the last 5 years.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

What if I just don't like assholes? And some asshole comes into my store, being a jerk, and I refuse to serve him. Isn't that my right?


I do not see the comparison between a behavior and someone's sexual orientation.

People have a choice on how they behave.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
they own the biz - they should be allowed to turn down anyone.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

What if homosexuals refuse to shop at Chick-Fil-A, because the CEO is overly religious, isn't that discrimination? Shouldn't we FORCE them to spend money there?


It is not because he is religious.

It is because he has donated at least 3 million dollars to officially designated anti-gay hate groups - - - that work to deny Equality to a minority group.

NOM (National Organization for Marriage) was formed specifically for one purpose. To stop gay marriage. That is their single purpose.

Therefore - - anyone eating at Chidk-fil-A - - - - is contributing to these anti-gay hate groups and discrimination.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibajaba
they own the biz - they should be allowed to turn down anyone.


And deserve the backlash they get because of it.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hp1229
Businesses have signs 'No shoes, no shirt, no service' does this mean every beach bum from venice beach will feel discriminated?


I love Venice Beach.

"Shoes and Shirts" in a closed in eating establishment is a state health law. It is not the owners choice.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I meant the ladie's night is voluntary. If some fool wants to pay extra to get into a bar on a Wednesday night, he deserves to be parted from his money.

No, nobody is forcing anybody to eat at that location. But people should be able to choose where they want to go as well.

Yo are advocating that people can go to other establishments, but being forced to go into other establishments that are not your choice is a pretty close step to segregation.

It may not seem like a big deal to you.

But on my wedding day, I wanted the best cake I could get, and there is only one place around me, the cake is divine.

If I wasn't allowed in for being Italian (which wasn't all that long ago) or whatever reason, I would be devastated. It would upset the whole process for me.

It is not a simple matter as you are trying to make it out to be.

What if there are no other bakeries?
edit on 1-8-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by hp1229
Businesses have signs 'No shoes, no shirt, no service' does this mean every beach bum from venice beach will feel discriminated?
I love Venice Beach. "Shoes and Shirts" in a closed in eating establishment is a state health law. It is not the owners choice.
Ok. Bad and invalid example. What about the other businesses that do not charge cover for women such as bars and clubs?
Isn't that discrimination?



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox


If I wasn't allowed in for being Italian (which wasn't all that long ago) or whatever reason, I would be devastated. It would upset the whole process for me.

It is not a simple matter as you are trying to make it out to be.


No its not.

My mom was denied entry to restaurants and a couple other places because she was disabled.

Oh - the owner had his excuses: Insurance - - disturbing to other customers - - etc.

Owner's right - - prior to the Disabilities Act.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Are we that ignorant as a society to have to have any group specifically defined as a "protected class" to know that discrimination isn't right?

Are red haired people a "protected class"??? Does that make it right and should it make it legal to discriminate against them???

I honestly don't care if there is no precedents...at some point in history there was no precedents that applied to racial discrimination.

It seems like your argument is justification of disgusting behavior.
edit on 1-8-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)


Exactly

What a childish argument: but you didn't say gay people...

Apparently we have to have an amendment for every single 3 year old that doesn't understand what discrimination is - or doesn't care because they really don't mind it

California realized they had to spell it out

The Unruh Civil Rights Act is a piece of California legislation that specifically outlaws discrimination based on age,[1][2] sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation.[3] This law applies to all businesses, including but not limited to hotels and motel, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, barber and beauty shops, housing accommodations, and retail establishments.[4] This law was enacted in 1959, and was named for the author Jesse M. Unruh. The Unruh Civil Rights Act is codified as California Civil Code section 51.[5]
en.wikipedia.org...

I wish we were brighter - but I guess we're not



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

If you honestly need to ask that question...then I know exactly what your mindset is and there is really no need in continuing the conversation.

I know Ron Paul's libertarian fantasy that excuses discrimination because "businesses will fail if they do"...but it's just an excuse to be racist, sexist, and homophobic.

If you honestly don't see what is wrong with discrimination...then it is because you have a mindset that you agree with it.

Luckily...society is advancing faster than the few individuals that are clinging on to old beliefs and practices.




Exactly, spot on mate.

It's ridiculous to think that businesses and people should just be allowed to openly discriminate and turn people away because "their business will succeed or fail on its own merits"

It just gives a green light to openly discriminate.

What about other issues of just discrimination and offence caused etc.


A tolerant society would not and should not allow it.
edit on 1/8/12 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
It goes both ways. It is fine, it is called personal business.

www.creativeminorityreport.com...



A San Francisco gay bar has banned bachelorette parties, saying "any celebration of straight marriage" is banned, according to LA Weekly.


www.queerty.com...


Apparently at Wang’s, a gay bar in Chicago‘s Boystown gayborhood, the posted policy has been to ban women after 11pm



Raist



I am going to quote this from page 3 as it is important to this story.

Some people better start getting pissed about these cases as well or they are hypocrites.

Raist



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

edit on 1-8-2012 by Kituwa because: error



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
So they're willing to lose money just because their idea of love is different?

Their store is a legal establishment, bound by legal standards, and discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal. They cannot refuse service based on sexual orientation. Same with McDonald's, Meijers, and Dunkin' Donuts. So how is it they're getting away with this?

edit on 1-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 


It was a very foolish business move on the part of the owners. Some people wanted a cake...for an event...I think they should have sold them a cake!

They will lose a lot of business and may have to close; it is their own fault.

The people that wanted to buy the cake from them; did not get involved in the personal beliefs and lives of the business owners in order to buy a cake; and the owners should not have worried about the personal lives of the cake buyers either.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
He did not refuse service based on sexual orientation. He refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage. He said he would sell them any cake but a wedding cake, to me this suggests his problem is with the definition of marriage and not with them being gay.

You can take him as his word or call him a liar. If the latter is the case then everyone posting here is a liar until proven different. That is how life is, just as with the links I posted and guess what, there were more.


Some say he will lose business and he might, he will also gain business from those who are like minded.

I would wager there is more to this story than we are getting, but hey that is normal for the media today. Give them enough to fight each other and keep the masses in constant turmoil.


Raist



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join