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

page: 18
6
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Annee
 


Again you do not want to talk about it so please let it go.


You "misquoted" me. Had to say something.


Your agrument about the cake and people make no sense.


It makes perfect sense. You just want to reject it.




posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 




Being obnoxious is disturbing to others. You are simply nit picking I was paraphrasing not quoting.


I reject faulty arguments. Both are businesses that serve a product. One serves drinks the other serves cake. Both refused service to customers.


Raist
edit on 8/2/12 by Raist because: typo



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by yadda333

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by hp1229
 


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).


Are you suggesting that religious gay couples should not be allowed to be married in a church of their faith?


No, I'm saying it is up to the church, and nobody should be forced to marry them or endorse their marriage. I think the marriage belongs to the church performing the ceremony, and I think the legal benefits of being a couple are legal matters to be filed with the clerk of courts. I think the two things should be entirely separated. I think the government should recognize all legal unions, and give the same benefits whether they are same sex, opposite sex, marriages of convenience, or otherwise. But, I think the government should but out of the "marriages" that a church chooses to perform or not perform.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I suck at quoting quotes, lol. eeek



Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



Really, how Christian is it to make people feel ostracized and feel bad about themselves?



I'm not a Christian, so it is none of my concern how good they are at following their own chosen faith? Seems pretty irrelavent.

You are not, but the baker is. People who do not support gay marriage do it on the basis of religious grounds. By claiming that you are supporting their freedom to discriminate, which is based on religious beliefs, you are supporting those religious beliefs.


They don't have ot like you, but they don't have to marginalize you either. What they can do is keep their mouth shut.




Really? We should make it mandatory that anyone can come into their private place of business and demand service, and they have to just keep their mouth shut?


Yes. You start a business because you want to make money off the public. You don't get to push your beliefs on that public why you are taking money from them. That is the whole point of anti-discrimination laws. The only times you get to deal with demographics is if you have a demographic specific product. Even then, if someone else wanted to buy that product, they still can.

it is also not good for the economy, when local businesses turn away business for stupid reasons.

So lets say we have an economic collapse. You have a family with a child, they are hungry, and you are the only store with bread in town. But the couple is inter-racial. And because the store owner doesn't believe in inter-racial marriages, are you going to support his "freedoms" then? At the cost of those children going hungry?

This is not a big deal to you because we are in an affluent community with a lot of options, but that could change at any time, but those bigotries will not go away.

What you are essentially supporting is the right for someone to remove choice from others.

You are ok with that?

Now what if all bakers refused to provide food to gay couples, leaving them no choice at all, are you still willing to protect their freedoms then? The right to remove choice from others?


You would be a pretty lousy mechanic losing money by refusing jobs. And I am sure that a better businessman, who likes both Fords and Chevy's, would be happy to take your place and make the money that you didn't want too.



Here we finally agree, but this is the opposite of what you said earlier. You said you wanted the best wedding cake in town, and only one place could provide it,


My reference to the wedding cake was to point out your lack of empathy to the situation. Getting your car fixed isn't an emotional experience like getting a wedding cake. Planning a wedding is an emotional, happy filled process. And that experience was ruined and denied to that couple by a mis guided baker. I will get my car fixed at any reputable mechanic, but wedding cakes are far more personal.



but now you are saying they would be a terrible business and someone else would be happy to take their place.

Either way, it is terrible business and hopefully a better business person will be able to take the opportunity. The emotional ramifications are different. Bakers are selling to a specific group, people who need to celebrate specific events, but apparently he wants to decide who can.



Which is it? Should they have the opportunity to be terrible and let someone else take their business, or should they be forced to do work they don't want to do?

If their bias is going to get into the way of their work, most likely they will do terrible business and fail. Yes they should be forced, and if they put out an inferior product and lose business, good.

Really stupid to turn down business, wedding business to a gay, because they are the first people most women go to for an opinion.

But I will also split hairs and tell you that legally, a mechanic can't do inferior business on a car deliberaly, and risk someone's life. That is manslaughter.


Do you really think you're wedding cake would be the quality you want it if they were forced to make it against their will? There is no way I would want that cake from someone that apparently hates me and everything I stand for.


No, but I would proved my point and have lots of satisfaction.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Crime is the lowest it has been in 60 years. So your point is refuted, and maybe gays = calmness.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Turq1
 


Ding ding ding ding ding.

I won't sell a cupcake to your daughter because she plays on the soccer team that is a rival to mine.

See how well that will go over.

But it is ok because it is someone else's kid.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by murphy22
 


Do you know why priests are not allowed to marry?
The excuse is that celibacy will bring them closer to God. The real reason is that in order to become a priest, you had to be wealthy. If the priest wasn't married, their estate would go to the church.

So they mandated that priests and other religious figures,a round 1200 AD, were not allowed to marry or have sex, to insure that there are no heirs, so the church can inherit their estate.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


But he also can't force others to his beliefs.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Juggernog
 


Are you going to just insult people are actually add to the conversation? Can you go be a neanderthal somewhere else?



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


Bars and restaurants are tricky because it is not just serving drinks, it is creating an atmosphere in which people are willing to meet and hang out. People hang out at specific bars to specific reasons, anyone can serve drinks, but that is not the sole basis of the busines. The atmosphere, the furniture, the dj you hire, the food you serve all plays into the allure for certain people.

On a basic level, no one should deny service to anyone for any reason. But the owner also has to try to keep the atmosphere he set. I think they should be able to discourage, but not alright refuse to serve.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



On a basic level, no one should deny service to anyone for any reason.


I vehemently disagree. I have denied service to people for all kinds of reasons, and I will continue to do so. I hung up on someone calling my office just this week. (The politically correct term is "terminated the call due to lack of cooperation.")


Seriously, consumers are out of hand. They are demanding, and feel entitled to order around business owners, and it is just completely out of control. I've had customers come up to complain about things before, and I take their complaint and ask them to leave and never return. It feels AWESOME! These whiny, prick, bastard customers think they can rule over a private place of business? HELL NO. I have friends that are police dispatchers, and they routinely take 911 emergency calls from drive-thrus at restaurants, where customers want someone arrested for getting their order wrong or refusing to give them a refund.


Sorry, but I think more businesses should be denying service, more often, and making consumers learn some manners if they want to shop at the quality establishments. If they want to be trouble-makers, they can go to the nasty, bottom-run establishments that will take anyone, but if they want premium service, then they need to act like premium customers.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:05 AM
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. 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
Marriage is not a religious ceremony. It's a contract, so what you said is in fact incorrect. The problem is not the government. The problem is religion and fundamentalists. Marriage is marriage.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Annee
 


Of course he cannot. But is not about them being gay according to him. He said he will make a homosexual any cake but that because he does not agree with the marriage. It is likely the issue of the definition he does not agree with. Which is why I offer that all should get civil union and the religious can have a seperate marriage thing.

The term marriage has been used as a religious one likely since its start. Leave it a religious term but let the government use civil unions for gay, straight, or whatever.


You also have to understand this is privately owned business. Unless there is a law preventing him from doing it he can. Do I agree with his choice? Not entirely, however it is his chioce.


Where is your anger at the links I posted twice though that are very relevant to this story as they are a reversal of the same issues? Is it okay for the gay bar to ban bacheloret parties?

Raist
First of all, same-sex couples cannot marry in most states in America. So let's not pretend there is any comparison regarding anything a gay bar does in regards to bachelor/bachelorette parties. Secondly, marriage has NOT been used as a religious term since it's inception, that is GARBAGE regurgitated by fundamentalists. It is a lie. Marriage is not a religious term. And since civil marriage has absolutely zilch to do with religion, what needs to be separated is actually religion from our government. Fundamentalists need to stop forcing their morality on non-fundamentalists and on the gay community.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuggernogYou know... youre obviously a zealot on this position, for whatever reason. In any case, the law is in his favor and since his company hasnt had any charges brought against them, then I'm guessing they havent broke any civil, state or federal laws.
Im sure these whiny ass lil girls will fill a civil suit though... yea?
First of all, you and other anti-gays are the ONLY people whining. Anti-gays whine about not being able to discriminate against gay people. You people are insufferable. And to call this couple whiny ass little girls in regards to their WEDDING and simply asking for a cake to be made and to be denied solely because of BIGOTRY is as offensive as it gets.

Now, with that being said, no, the law is not in his favor. Colorado protects sexual orientation in it's discrimination clause. Meaning, blatant anti-gay discrimination is not legal in the state of Colorado.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by RaistIf we are to work together on solving this issue though we have to have each side working toward a solution. If neither side will budge nothing will get solved and we will be stuck in a revolving door.

The only possible way to get through this where the majority of both sides are happy is just to have a government acknowledged union and then a religious one as well. Like I mention in a past post those I know are against the idea of the use of the term marriage because they view it as a religious term and they themselves are interested in the same sex. My wife though while not completely interested (she is at the very least bisexual) believe the same. In fact it was because of my disscusion with them that I came to the idea I have.

Raist
What you and those of your group who believe as you do fail to understand is that there aren't two sides to this debate, and the ONLY solution is that same-sex couples are given the full legal rights they are required under the law. And if others don't "believe" in it or don't like it, then that's really too bad. Don't enter a same-sex marriage. No-one has to cater to what anyone chooses to believe. And I definitely know no-one cares whether conservatives/fundamentalists/anti-gays are happy or not whether same-sex couples marry. Being happy has zero to do with legal rights.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I'm absolutely staggered at the amount of posters who would use the success of a discriminating business to determine whether it is acceptable or not to discriminate in the first place.

So, you would conclude that if profit margins aren't hurt, then there is no reason to stop discrimination?

Providing food to a customer does not require you to agree with their moral or personal opinions - refusing service to someone on the basis of their sexuality is a weak action taken by even weaker individuals.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I don't see what the big deal is either.
It is their business and they can service whoever they want.

All the gay couple has to do is find a baker who will make their cake. Shouldn't be difficult.
Seems like this country wants to demonize anyone who has an opinion which differs from their own.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by crazydaysandnights

Originally posted 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.

Tell me Annee.. do you have such a line.. at all?
LOL at where do you draw the line. Are you threatened by the gay community? Are you threatened by LGBT citizens having the same rights as heterosexual citizens? Seems as if you are. Almost hilarious, if it weren't so ridiculous.
Why would a single person be threatened or should feel threatened? Its about the society as a whole. The real question that should be asked is why there is a increase in the gay population world wide if not in US? Is it something in the genetics or food that is turning folks into homosexuals? Moreoever, do you think it would have any affect on the population in the long term? (Japan and Russia has possible future problem with such scenario where the decline in birth rates and the demographic issues).

It is not a homophobia but a legitimate concern which ofcourse many economists of a country rely upon to project the economic futures and data. There are psychological and physiological factors or types of gay people. Some are deviated towards the same sex due to psychological reasons and others are born that way. Ofcourse same sex marriages will not be able to produce the offsprings so they have to either borrow or rent a fellow human to provide them with a baby for their selfish motives to upbring a child and to pretend living a normal mammalian life. Sure it can work and in fact it has worked where the child turned out just fine (non-gay). However how long before it becomes the norm and a scapegoat for many who just do not wish to be burned by the responsibilities that comes with being married to the opposite sex? or from the institution of marriage? Not every gay couple opts for children as well. Ofcourse this has nothing to with the topic on hand but just wanted to express my opinion.

Russian_Population_Decline
Web_Clock_Child_Population_Japan
edit on 2-8-2012 by hp1229 because: add content



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Raist
 
On a basic level, no one should deny service to anyone for any reason.
So you wouldn't have a problem if a stanky homeless dude probably crapped in his pants with flies buzzing around his butt walking into your shop (for arbitrary sake) asking to provide a massage and/or a haircut? Lets assume he found a crisp 100.00 dollar bill.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 



Its about the society as a whole. The real question that should be asked is why there is a increase in the gay population world wide if not in US?


It is a result of stereotyping, and socially steering people.

I have a niece that I know for certain is NOT a lesbian, but she thinks she is one. She always liked boys, but she was a tomboy. She is stocky (not fat), and her mom and dad are both cops, she grew up around guns, and martial arts, and she just enjoys things that boys enjoy, but she also liked boys up until age 17 or 18. Some of her classmates accused her of being a lesbian, her mom worried about her being a lesbian and made it overly abundantly clear that it was perfectly ok if she were one. She was steered into being more socially accepted as a lesbian than that of a hetero girl with manly interests.

Now, at age 23 or 24, she is not happy as a lesbian, she doesn't have good relationships with women, but she is convinced that she is a lesbian.

I have a high school classmate that is in a long-term relationship with a women, that started while they played college sports together, because the whole team was basically lesbian. In high school the girl was completely hetero, and in talking to her, she is much more sexually attracted to men, and she prefers the company of men, but at this point it is more convenient to stay in the lesbian relationship than it would to start over. She loves her mate, and they even enjoy all types of sex, straight and bi, and they are best friends, but in the grand scheme of things, she realizes she is probably not a lesbian.

I'm sure there are plenty of people that really are homosexual, but these days we actually steer the masculine females, or the feminine males in that direction whether they want it or not!
edit on 2-8-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join