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: 14
6
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
This is just simply poor business practice. They have a right to refuse selling their product, but they hurt their own business in the long run. So as word gets around the cake shop doesn't serve gays, the cake shop loses business. You lose a segment of your demographics that make up your business.

I think it's just ridiculous for any business owner to even care who they sell their product to. Bottom line, business is business, a customer is a customer, what customers do with their own personal lives is really none of their business.




posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 



he book they read tells them that God sent fire down on Sodom and Gomorrah and destroyed the place because of all the gay wickedness.


I don't want to turn this into a scripture thread but I feel compelled to respond. Their book says no such thing. The wickedness was a multitude of reasons and homosexuality was not one of them. When the townsfolk knocked on Lot's door demanding the angel-men so they could have sex with them that implies a gang rape. That's not consensual. That's not homosexuality. That's just rape. When a heterosexual person rapes the opposite sex do you view it as an expression of heterosexuality or as an expression of rape?

Not that this story is a good moral teaching to begin with since Lot offered his daughters to be gang-raped in the Angels stead...



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 



O.k... fine. Equal rights for gays. Where do you draw the line? Equal rights for illegal aliens? Equal rights for real aliens, if they would suddenly land on the White House lawn. Equal rights for dolphins.. you know many people believe dolphins are sentient beings.


For the life of me I have not been able to understand why this concern is so prevalent. Why is the line even pertinent? How are they directly related? Is the idea that literally once gays are allowed marriage we will allow marriage with animals and trees as a direct result? You know I am fairly certain this slippery slope argument was voiced towards interracial marriage as well... did that immediately lead to 'the line' somehow expanding to encompass anything and everything? I just don't get the rationale here. Why can't we just address each new civil rights issue as they come as the World changes?... why do we have to drown ourselves with hypotheticals that don't really hold any bearing to the issue at hand??...



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
. why do we have to drown ourselves with hypotheticals that don't really hold any bearing to the issue at hand??...


Because that's the only argument they have. Logic cant be expected in the opposition to gay rights as there is no sensible reason why we shouldn't let them do what the rest of us do. Hence why you have continually seen people jump to such preposterous comparisons and what ifs



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Crack me up! The very people posting on this issue don't want you craming your "beliefs" down their throat. But yet they demand you accept theirs or your a "biggot"! Same old arguement.
So using their argument. I should be able to go into a bakery owned by a black family and order a cake made to look like a CSA Stars and bars, saying: "the south shall rise!" And they would have no right to refuse me. Or better yet, as a Christian go to a Gay Bakers store and order a cake with writing quoting the bible "man shall not lay with man as with a woman." They better not refuse me, their going to make that cake if they like it or not!

Absurd! Honestly nodody cares if Homosexuals want to play wedding, But people should not be forced to play a part in the play date. Even if it is just providing a service. Just like I would not sell condoms to a guy I knew was going off to screw a cow or sheep. Which to me is the same as two dudes...... Well you know.

The arguement is There is a minority of people (look I called them people) that want to change a union recognized from the dawn of time as between a man and woman. Who now say "But that was different, things have changed. We're more educated, have technology, science and enlightenment which has made that biggoted thinking all obsolete."

I already know what some clown is going to say..... but I'll go on. So if, in the future by Tech, Science and enlightenment we as humans could communicate and carry on a conversation with animals and understand each other. What happens when Liz finds Mr. Ed atractive and wants to marry him,... raise children together and by a cake at a bakery and force the baker to accept their "love"?

G and L are not looking for "tolerance" they are looking for "acceptance" and can not stand the fact their are people that think they are twisted in the head. Which is their right to believe.
edit on 1-8-2012 by murphy22 because: spelling errors



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by murphy22

So using their argument. I should be able to go into a bakery owned by a black family and order a cake made to look like a CSA Stars and bars, saying: "the south shall rise!" And they would have no right to refuse me. Or better yet, as a Christian go to a Gay Bakers store and order a cake with writing quoting the bible "man shall not lay with man as with a woman." They better not refuse me, their going to make that cake if they like it or not!


again you are drawing a comparison that isn't in line with what happened at the bakery.

Using your argument we kick common sense out the door and ramble off on anything we can try to vaguely connect to the incident but yeah that makes all sorts of sense.

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



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by crazydaysandnights
 


That is pretty much what I said.

To keep the government out of religion let marriage be a religious ceremony. Anyone including straight people should have a civil union to be recognized by the government. If people want marriage that would be a ceremony in the church of their choosing.

Not really that difficult to keep the government out of this.

As for benefits they should get that. I do not recall saying they should not. I am saying though I St taxed more for being married.

Raist



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by murphy22
Just like I would not sell condoms to a guy I knew was going off to screw a cow or sheep. Which to me is the same as two dudes...... Well you know.


I find it disturbing how easily you were able to talk about animal/human sex but got all prudish and shy about homosexual sex.


The arguement is There is a minority of people (look I called them people) that want to change a union recognized from the dawn of time as between a man and woman


SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME. The dawn of time, everybody. I can't take anybody who uses that phrase seriously.


I already know what some clown is going to say..... but I'll go on. So if, in the future by Tech, Science and enlightenment we as humans could communicate and carry on a conversation with animals and understand each other. What happens when Liz finds Mr. Ed atractive and wants to marry him,... raise children together and by a cake at a bakery and force the baker to accept their "love"?


Yes--this is it. This makes perfect sense.



edit on 1-8-2012 by murphy22 because: spelling errors


This had way more problems than just spelling errors.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by paganini
 


Care to explain yourself? How does it not relate? Of course not.
I would be doing the same thing to these bakers setting them up to bake me a cake they may not enjoy or want to make. Very narrow, you are.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by crazydaysandnights
 


That is pretty much what I said.

To keep the government out of religion let marriage be a religious ceremony.


Go back an undo? It doesn't work that way.

We and other countries in the world already have Legal Same Sex Marriage.

Maybe you could built a time machine.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by yadda333
 


LOL! OK, right.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by yadda333
 


It's all analogy. Not important and after reading some of you post, I would not expect you to have understood it.
I guess I took something different from the OP story. But I have no dog in the fight. I saw a spade so that's what I called it. All I read was some baker didn't want to compromise his beliefs and the heterophobes didn't like it. My post was regarding the loss of normal standards.
I can see how some would not understand the analogies. But these are people proud to be queer. I have no dog in that fight either. Analogies on the loss of standards thats all it was......
edit on 1-8-2012 by murphy22 because: spelling errors



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by murphy22

Care to explain yourself? How does it not relate?


Your example here


Originally posted by murphy22I should be able to go into a bakery owned by a black family and order a cake made to look like a CSA Stars and bars, saying: "the south shall rise!"


Shows the person going into a store and provoking trouble over racial matters


Then your scenario here


Originally posted by murphy22, as a Christian go to a Gay Bakers store and order a cake with writing quoting the bible "man shall not lay with man as with a woman."


Again its provoking trouble The gay couple did not go into a store and do anything offensive nor did the Lakewood store advertises itself as a business that is focused around "Christian values" and will only serve those who share similar beliefs therefore again like in the first example your comparison is poor.


Now lets use a good comparison and compare your post to someone trying to smash a puzzle piece into a place it wont fit.


Here's a crazy idea guys. Since so many of you are so god awful at making comparisons and using hypotheticals how about you directly address the topic that's being discussed instead of trying to dance around it constantly.
edit on 1-8-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


This thread is not about other countries. As for the U.S. those "married " would be grandfathered in as a civil union. Those wanting those benifits now would file for civil union. If they want the religious recognition they can have a marriage ceremony.

You then get seperation of church and state.


Raist



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Annee
 


This thread is not about other countries. As for the U.S. those "married " would be grandfathered in as a civil union. Those wanting those benifits now would file for civil union. If they want the religious recognition they can have a marriage ceremony.

You then get seperation of church and state.



Global Equality absolutely matters. Marriage is marriage is marriage - - for everyone.

The USA did not have official government marriage licenses - - - until government decided they needed a legal way to prevent interracial marriage.

The US government created a legal contract called Marriage. Too fricken bad they didn't have the foresight to make it exclusive between man and woman. Too fricken bad they didn't call it Civil Union - - - and leave Marriage to church.

It is what it is - - - and NO WHERE in the Legal Government Contract called Marriage License - - - does it mention God or man and woman.

Gays are not responsible for their racist forefathers - - - and overzealous actions to prevent interracial marriage.

Does this all work in their favor? Absolutely!

We will have full Marriage Equality - - - for EVERYONE!



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


If that is the case your first concern should be to get all countries to stop murdering homosexuals.


Again though this thread deals with only the U.S. and really is not even about allowing gay marriage or not. The real discussion is about the rights of this business to refuse a wedding cake for gay marriage.

The Guy will make them any cake but a wedding cake according to his own words.

Raist



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Annee
 


If that is the case your first concern should be to get all countries to stop murdering homosexuals.


My concern does.

Try to stay on subject.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by paganini
 


Because "you guys" Take a different view than we guys.
They went in to not provoke? Maybe thay did. Maybe thay didn't. Perhaps the whole story was not told. Perhaps they knew by word of mouth this baker was of that mind set. When people have an agenda, they do some silly stuff. Like make up words to describe people that don't exsist... ie Homophobe. A word I guarantee you did not hear 60 yrs ago, but made up to "provoke"..... and not provoke thought. Because someone does not agree with you, does not mean they fear you.
That aside. Maybe I wanted the cake from the "black baker" for a reenactment? Ande because I am so color blind it never dawned on me they were black. Now my point was in my analogy, does he have the right to refuse me service. I my not like it, but yes he does. Things are not always as they seem. That's why my originally post reply was this story is a non-issue. It still is! Dont get a whinie because you couldn't get your cake. I do no remember if they were females or males that got refused. But if they were males and started a fuss over a cake. Lets just say they are doing nothing for their cause. LOL! Go some place else and get you cake, don't go back their again. Simple fix.
t
edit on 1-8-2012 by murphy22 because: change word



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
And - - here is your REAL History of Marriage


The history of marriage is not as clear cut, unchanging and "historic" as Mr. Bush, Mr. Falwell and others would have you think. Nor, contrary to their claims, has it always been about providing stable homes for children and insuring the welfare of children. Let me qualify that statement just a bit. In a sense, it was about insuring the welfare of children, but only in the sense that children were considered property, as were wives. Children could be bought and sold into slavery. Women, as mentioned above, were expected to marry their dead husband's brother, whether she wanted to or not. Marriage didn't really begin to gain importance as an institution until man began settling into a more agrarian society. Once there were estates to pass down and land to defend, a man had to insure that he was passing them down to his biological children. Thus marriage was born-- as a means of dealing with the distribution of propoerty. Marriage was controlled by the males of the family: women were given away in marriage whether they consented to it or not. It wasn't until 866 that Pope Nicholas I declared that consent of the woman was required to create a valid (ie, legal) marriage. Despite this, however, it was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that married women had any legal standing. Sadly, in 1940, married women were still not able to make legal contracts in twelve states within the US.

Far from being an "historically religious ceremony", the Catholic church didn't even become involved in the issue of heterosexual marriage until around the 12th century. And it wasn't until the Council of Trent in 1563 that the Catholic church began to require marriages to be performed in a Catholic church by a Catholic priest. There is even proof, according to John Boswell in his book Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, that the Catholic church had special ceremonies for marrying gays. In Puritan Massachusettes, marriage was strictly a civil ceremoney until 1686 with no involvement of clergy whatsoever.

onespiritproject.com...



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by murphy22

Because "you guys" Take a different view than we guys.
They went in to not provoke? Maybe thay did. Maybe thay didn't. Perhaps the whole story was not told. Perhaps they knew by word of mouth this baker was of that mind set. When people have an agenda, they do some silly stuff


If they did then why didn't the owner of the store speak up about it? It certainly would have helped his defense if this was what occurred.



.

Originally posted by murphy22 Like make up words to describe people that don't exsist... ie Homophobe. A word I guarantee you did not hear 60 yrs ago, but made up to "provoke"..... and not provoke thought. Because someone does not agree with you, does not mean they fear you.


lol what homophobes dont exist? Tell me you're trolling? Xd

so the various words for bigots aren't anything i take it? sexists don't exists racists don't exist? etcetc?




Originally posted by murphy22That aside. Maybe I wanted the cake from the "black baker" for a reenactment? Ande because I am so color blind it never dawned on me they were black.


Tsk tsk again your humoring bizarre hypothetical instead of talking about the issue at hand




new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join