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

Originally posted by Henley
It's his business, his choice. PERIOD! Quit making an issue, crying about it and go to another cake shop!

edit on 31-7-2012 by Henley because: (no reason given)

I agree. It doesn't get any simpler than that. But with the increasing exposure, visibility and attention in the political scene both locally and internationally, it is something they seek to blow things out of proportion. As others mentioned, there are several discrimination acts being committed everyday by several business aiming at men and favoring women. But majority of the men know that its a marketing and business tactic. Most of the men just ignore and move on.

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

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

Why is this a conspiracy??

It is not a conspiracy. I opened this thread under 'Social and Civil unrest'. I do agree that the website is primarily catering to conspiracy theories with additional subjects under the forums.

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

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

Why is this a conspiracy??

It is not a conspiracy. I opened this thread under 'Social and Civil unrest'. I do agree that the website is primarily catering to conspiracy theories with additional subjects under the forums.

Yeah because ATS needs MORE politically charged and morally polarized topics to divide people

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by paganini

uh anne correct me if im wrong but you were talking about the hetero pda and boob flashing and what not in mardi gra ?

edit yep i was right lol

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

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

Now that's just silly aside what you see on TV. Those things do happen but it's not blatant as the TV would have you believe. People get arrested for doing those things. It's not socially acceptable nor is it in any way looked at as o.k. to get away with or legal.

You mean like when the media shows Gay Pride on TV - - they focus on the extreme stereotype - - and replay it a thousand times?

Kissing in public is not illegal. If they were doing something illegal - - they would be arrested.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

It was easy. I stayed on topic in relation to the post. If Anne wanted it to be obvious she was talking about the flip side of the argument, she should have indicated it better. Nothing embarrassing here.

Do you feel the same way about Mardi Gras?

Yeah - - so misleading.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
I don't see how this is any different than refusing a wedding cake to a black or multiracial couple; it's all bigotry, even if it's homophobia and not racism. Personal views are fine, but this is segregation. It's one thing to dislike a minority group, it's another to intentionally make life harder for them.

No one is making life harder for these people in the story. So they have to shop somewhere else, big deal. I also don't consider this segregation. Segregation would have one cake line for straight people and one cake line for gays. Or a sign saying no gays allowed period, neither of which is this guy doing.

I have made wedding cakes. The ingredients are dirt cheap. The skill you need to fancy them up is easy and cheap to learn, just takes practice. This business owner is not losing anything by not selling this guy a cake.

If I had a cake business, I'd put a set of stock wedding cakes on display. I'd sell the male and female figures that go on top separately. If gay people or people who wanted same sex marriage (same thing to me) wanted to buy a cake, I'd take their money if just to relieve them of having money I feel they don't deserve to have. In my book, immoral people deserve nothing. If they told me they were gay and wanted a special cake made, I'd tell em, nope, cant do that, either take the generic wedding cakes on the stands or go somewhere else. This goes the same for illegal aliens, gang members, people who belong to bikers clubs, or thug looking people no matter what color.

maybe cake maker was gay too? homophobic denial?

plenty gay pastry chefs around you know

have your cake n eat it

reply to post by FlyersFan

- 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.

Negative...anti-discrimination laws apply to homosexuals as well.

Do you think this cake shop should be allowed to hang up a sign saying "We dont' serve blacks"??? If not...then why do you think it is ok for them to basically say the same thing about homosexuals???

It seems like you have no problem with it at all.

I would just like all these homophobe Christian business owners a couple simple question.

Do you think Jesus would serve a gay person if he owned a business???

Do you think Jesus would praise you for judging others???

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

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

Why is this a conspiracy??

It is not a conspiracy. I opened this thread under 'Social and Civil unrest'. I do agree that the website is primarily catering to conspiracy theories with additional subjects under the forums.

Yeah because ATS needs MORE politically charged and morally polarized topics to divide people

Well you can comment and contribute or simply ignore. There is nothing more to this thread then discussion. I hate politics to be honest. Choice is yours

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

- 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.

Negative...anti-discrimination laws apply to homosexuals as well.

Do you think this cake shop should be allowed to hang up a sign saying "We dont' serve blacks"??? If not...then why do you think it is ok for them to basically say the same thing about homosexuals???

It seems like you have no problem with it at all.

I covered that Way back on page 2.

It isn't a basis for a lawsuit, and it isn't illegal.

Sexual orientation is not a protected class like race. Therefore, your analogy to a sign refusing service to blacks is off-base. In addition, even if it were a protected class, there are plenty of precedents where discriminating against consumers was allowed by law. Ladies Nights, Senior Discounts, Military Discounts, Female-only gyms and clubs, Male only clubs, etc., etc.

Now, there is one famous suit that damaged Denny's in a large way, because they were systematically refusing service to blacks, but there are hundreds of other failed suits where blacks or women paid more for cars, or paid more for merchandise or services, and those lawsuits all failed.

There are ZERO successful lawsuits for consumer discrimination based on sexuality. IN FACT, the most strict stanadards are in HUD regulations for housing, and they have the "familial status" clause, and even in housing lawsuits, I can't find a single precedent where a homosexual was refused a rental unit or purchase and then won a lawsuit based on it.

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.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Funny how they have religious views, but they are suddenly neutral when it comes to the person with money in their hand.

Originally posted by VikingWarlord
reply to post by paganini

 

They were "childish" enough to blab to the whole world how they were mistreated instead of quietly finding another establishment that could fulfill their needs. No, instead they basically screamed "oppression!" and knew other irrational bleeding hearts would rush to their aid and take up the cause. I am not religious, and was very tolerant towards the gay community until about 5 years ago. They have become militant, in your face and hate filled. If you don't embrace them totally and have any differing opinion, you are a right wing demon bigot racist! As a former registered democrat, (now no party) and being not religious, I find it amusing to be lumped into their little category that anyone that doesn't worship them fall into.
,

Wait...I've seen this pattern somewhere else before...oh yeah, every other freaking group that has ever felt the hand of discrimination.

Those who are discriminated against today are tomorrow's monsters. It's like some evil kind of societal karma, except you don't have to wait for anyone to die in order for it to rear its ugly flipping head because society never goes away. You just wait a couple generations.

You can go to Lamda Legal - - to see what rights LGBT have in each state.

Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work. www.lambdalegal.org...

Colorado does have laws against discrimination of LGBT in employment.

It depends on location if there are laws protecting LGBT against business owners. I know Just Cookies in the Market Place in Indianapolis - - were "spanked" because the Market Place itself had an anti-discrimination policy in place. As far as I know - - they are still there - - but will no longer be denying requests for rainbow cookies. (yes I know the flap was over cupcakes not cookies - not relevant).

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Sexual orientation is not a protected class like race. Therefore, your analogy to a sign refusing service to blacks is off-base.

In some states, it already is.

Now, there is one famous suit that damaged Denny's in a large way, because they were systematically refusing service to blacks, but there are hundreds of other failed suits where blacks or women paid more for cars, or paid more for merchandise or services, and those lawsuits all failed.

There is a difference between being refused service and being shafted. The reason the second part failed is that the customers signed contracts or exchanged money, solidifying the service.

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

reply to post by paganini


That is just it, it isn't a problem until your the one being marginalized.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Your from New Orleans, shocker.

That is one good way to ruin your business. Another way, if your not a "God and Guns" person, is to refuse service to military personnel. I would do that, if I was already rich, and did not fear being murdered.

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???

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.

What is the "disgusting behavior?"

Was this the only cupcake shop in town? What if I walk into Walmart and demand they do something for me they don't want to do? I want the milk aisle in the very front, and they refuse to accomodate me. Isn't that their right?

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?

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?

In my opinion, a business should be able to choose who it does or doesn't serve, and then let the cards fall where they will. If it can survive, then good for them, if it fails, then justice is served. We can't force the hands of the private business person to do our bidding.