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.

 

Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake

page: 16
18
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 



Originally posted by sdcigarpig
While discrimination is wrong, the question is why target one person or business?


Because they are breaking the law. If I went into my local Albertsons and they told me, "We're sorry, we don't serve women"... I'd be contacting someone about it.



Does the baker, if he has employees, has he denied any employment to anyone who is gay? If a gay person were to walk in and ask for a cake, not a wedding cake, does he refuse them service?


Those questions have been answered. He has not denied employment to gay people and he has made cakes for gay people, just not wedding cakes.

Masterpiece Cakeshop Agrees to Dog Wedding Cake



In 2012, Phillips told local CBS affilate KCNC-TV that he has no problem with lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) customers or staff members, but nonetheless does not support gay marriage, when he refused to bake a cake for Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig.

Arguing that he who rather "close down the bakery" than "compromise our beliefs," Phillips said at the time, "If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever. It's just the wedding cake -- not the people, not their lifestyle."



If he has hired and has on staff gay people, and has sold cakes and goods to gay people, then it is simply a matter of the fact that he does not believe in gay marriage and it is not a case of discrimination, thus the lawsuits are ultimately fradulent, and what is going on is an attempt to ruin his name and reputation.


His views on gay marriage are irrelevant. He makes wedding cakes for couples who get married and even dogs... He is discriminating.



On the flip side, the question is, if the couple knows that this man is not going to or be willing to make them a wedding cake, due to his belief, why then bring a lawsuit against him?


Because he's breaking the law...



Did he make any disparaging remarks about such, did he indicate that he does not like gay people, did he at any point and time indicate that he was disgusted by them?


He doesn't have to make disparaging remarks. He refused them service that he provides to other married couples - because they were gay.




posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by esdad71
 


In what reality does who you are having sex with determine the bakery you can use? Do you not see the sheer insanity of this?

I would say that if it is a Christian baker who is up in arms over having to bake cakes for gay people...they should ask themselves what the namesake of their religion would do. You know, Jesus....the guy who had among his best friends a prostitute.


The reality where in America we have a choice. Just like they have a choice of a baker as a "private" business, I should have the choice to choose who I want to serve especially if it goes against my core religious beliefs.

This means that no matter how you feel about something, the government can tell you how you can act in the private sector. Screw that. Seriously. I do not care if it is gay marriage and who cares if he makes cakes for dogs. Those people who dress up their pets and have ceremonies and such have deeper issues to deal with.

As a Christian, he is following his core set of Christian beliefs. Just because Jesus hung out and forgave prostitutes, are you saying he should forgive people for being gay? I think your argument backfired.

BH, Sorry, but there was a link to one of the many stories that said they asked for their names to be on the cake but that is really irrelevant at this point. Although this statement, about a cake, is ridiculous...




“We were all very upset, but I was angry and I felt dehumanized and mortified,” Mullins said in an interview with the Associated Press.



If he said " we don't serve fags", again, I would feel much different. He employs and makes cakes for gay people.

Point is that in the tolerant and liberal left leaning society that is out there, there is a plethora of bakeries they could go to and out of all of them, they went to one that was known, even by them, to not make same sex cakes.

If this was a small rural town in Idaho I honestly would have a different view barbecue any gay couple may be put out and have to seriously change plans. Not the case here. Grow up and let the baker have his own ideas. Picket the baker...start a social media campaign and destory him but tie up the legal system when there is ALREADY a non discriminatory law that is unconstitutional....let it go. I think Unemployment, hunger in America and wiretaps are a bit more important than suing a baker for following his right to religious freedom.

edit on 8-6-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-6-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
a baker for following his right to religious freedom.


Where in the Bible did Jesus say to shun sinners?

Did he pick and chose whom to feed when he fed the five thousand?



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

I realize that my comment on the last page was expressed in a casual, almost flip, manner but I assure you it was not a trivial point. Let's look at your most recent post.


Those questions have been answered. He has not denied employment to gay people and he has made cakes for gay people, just not wedding cakes.
As you point out, he hires and sells to gays. His normal business practice has not changed over time. It is, as you indicate, not discriminatory.

Then, one day it all changes and he is declared to be a discriminator. What changed? Not the sexual preference of the customers, he's always sold to gays. The only thing that has changed is the product asked for, a gay wedding cake. It should be obvious then, that he is not rejecting gay people, he is refusing to make a particular product whether it's asked for by gays or straights.


He refused them service that he provides to other married couples - because they were gay.
But here is your error, he does not provide same-sex wedding cakes to other married couples, he rejects all such requests equally. They may or may not ask for gay wedding cakes, but that's not the point. He would treat all requests for such a product equally, therefore no discrimination.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. Off-topic, but an interesting thought experiment. Walk into a Halal bakery wearing a yarmulke and ask them to make a cake with a picture of Muhammad, kneeling before an Israeli flag on it. They want it for a special festival. The bakery refuses, claiming it's against their religion. Sue on the basis of religious discrimination. Profit. - C -



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 


So you are calling gays sinners? Man, that is pretty messed up. I am saying this based on the Catholic faith that...



The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament


Also, the US passed the Defense of Marriage Act which states it is a union on man and woman. So, again, the law in Colorado, if there was a ruling for the couple, would be in direct violation of Federal Law.
edit on 8-6-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by HandyDandy
 


So you are calling gays sinners?


According to the Christians...yes.

Circular logic much?

BTW...claiming religious freedom doesn't give one a free pass to break the law. Rastafarians go to jail for marijuana just as often as other people do.


Question: Is Ganja Legal for Rastas in the United States?

Marijuana, commonly known as ganja among Rastas, is illegal in most countries, including the US. However, as an important part of the Rastafari religion, is ganja smoking protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees religious freedom?

Answer:
No. Possessing marijuana is illegal in the United States regardless of religion. In fact, while a number of states have taken steps to decriminalize marijuana use, particularly for medical reasons, federal agencies can still arrest marijuana users within those states.


altreligion.about.com...
edit on 8-6-2013 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-6-2013 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 


Gay Marriage is what we are talking about here....the baker hires gay people and accepts them. Therefore, he is a tolerant Christian.

Old testament states that there should not be sex between a man and a man as it is a sin. In many Christian faiths being gay is accepted and not look on as a sin. However, gay marriage has not made that stride. There are also verse in the New where Jesus accepts it and forgives all brothers and sisters.

I asked if YOU think they are sinners based on your statement. Westboro Baptist much?
edit on 8-6-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-6-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
You're right. They could have simply found another bakery.

However, once you go into business, you can't selectively pick customers and deny other people your service based on the First Amendment.

There was a recent case of a bed and breakfast owning couple who refused to allow a gay couple to stay there, the gay couple sued and won.

I suspect the gay couple will win in this case as well.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



Originally posted by esdad71
The reality where in America we have a choice. Just like they have a choice of a baker as a "private" business, I should have the choice to choose who I want to serve especially if it goes against my core religious beliefs.


Does atheism go against his core beliefs? He would make a cake for atheists, as long as they weren't gay. His argument (and yours) does not hold water.

Your opinions are one thing, and you are entitled to them. But the law is another. However you think things "should" be, the bakery is the breaking current Colorado law.



Point is that in the tolerant and liberal left leaning society that is out there, there is a plethora of bakeries they could go to and out of all of them, they went to one that was known, even by them, to not make same sex cakes.


I have not seen a source that indicates that they knew they would be turned down. In fact, the original story from a year ago says they were stunned to be turned down. Original Story



They went into the Masterpiece Cake Shop thinking they’d spend a full day trying cakes for their ceremony. Instead the meeting lasted a few seconds.

“My first comment was, ‘We’re getting married,’ and he just shut that down immediately,” Craig said.

Mullin and Craig were stunned.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



Originally posted by charles1952
The only thing that has changed is the product asked for, a gay wedding cake.


What is a "gay wedding cake"? Cakes don't have sexuality. They did not ask for "a gay wedding cake". They asked for a wedding cake and were refused. The product is EXACTLY the same. Only the customers' orientation is different.

Your really reaching here, charles...



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


If they were gay atheists, based on his actions, I would have to say yes.


I guess I am looking at a bigger picture here about how a person cannot believe in something and make their own choices in this country anymore. Reject your values or go out of business.

The couple had a the 'choice' to go anywhere and choose a bakery known in the area that did not make them in the past. Do we really think they did not know. I have read 3 different stories that they walked in and were told no immediately, looked at some pictures and then were told no during that and read one that stated they told te baker it was for them after looking and were told no...



The couple are alleging the owners have a history of turning away same-sex couples.


Anther case in Oregon called economic terrorism....

Link

Why should a business be made to do something that goes against its beliefs. So, if a devil worshiper walked into a Wiccan store they would have to help him, right?

People, think about how wrong this law is at its core. I understand equal rights but when someone has a belief, again, who is the government to tell them what to do and go against that belief? He is not claiming homosexuality is bad, he is just saying that based on his religious beliefs he should not have to make it.

Colorado law is one thing but at a Federal level this would have to be overturned. Is it worth that when gay marriage is not even legal anyways.

So, stepping back and looking at it closer, since gay marriage is not legal this would not fall under discrimination, would it? He says he would make a cake for someone who is gay, just not for a marriage ceremony. I guess there is no case since there is no basis for a legal marriage.




edit on 8-6-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darth_Prime

Originally posted by markosity1973

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by markosity1973
The point that I have been trying to make is that then opens up gay night clubs in particular to be sued in reprisal.


Good. If they are discriminating then they deserve it.


And this is where your straightness betrays you.

There is a good reason, albeit illegal why gay clubs do this. It is the only place a gay person can go and meet and make an advance on another person being safe in the knowledge they are not about to be beat up for it. I have been into gay clubs all over the world and the same entry policies apply. Yes some gay clubs do have events that see them open for straight folk but most are discriminatory to this day

Its actually not that easy out in the open world for 2 gay people to find one another you know. Sure the internet has changed things a bit, but we still need safe places to met.


i concur,

though, places i've done drag there have been straight guys who go with their Girlfriend, Likewise straight guys who just enjoy the entertainment,music,drinks Etc, straight people even go to pride events because they support the cause and community

no matter how much debates occurs, he refused based on discriminatory views, that is a law in Colorado, regardless if it was a Law or not, discrimination is wrong on any level and both sides



The law is the law, I get that. I realise that in the case of the wedding case it looks like it was broken.

I also know that straight people openly support and socialise within the gay community. Every city that I know of also has straight bars where gay people like to frequent. I've been to loads of them.

Maybe if I use the example of female only gyms people will understand what I mean. We used to have a chain of them here. Females loved them because they were able to exercise in peace without being perved upon by the guys. The new law came in and one idiotic bloke challenged this gym just because he wanted to prove a point. Naturally he won and now the gyms have all shut and girls have lost a place where they can exercise and feel themselves. These gyms weren't hurting anyone, but the law made it impossible for them to exist and now many females are very unhappy over what they have lost.

I posted a link earlier to the almost identical law in my own state here in oz. The point I have been trying to get across is that these venues are one lawsuit away from being shut down.

This one couple I.e. 2 people are causing a storm that could ruin everything for hundreds, perhaps a few thousand patrons of gay bars in the state. It won't take long for someone to sue a gay bar over entry policies.
edit on 8-6-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





P.s. Off-topic, but an interesting thought experiment. Walk into a Halal bakery wearing a yarmulke and ask them to make a cake with a picture of Muhammad, kneeling before an Israeli flag on it. They want it for a special festival. The bakery refuses, claiming it's against their religion. Sue on the basis of religious discrimination. Profit. - C -



Good point. Progressives pick and choose what type of political correctness is acceptable to them. I have said in the last 24 hours that the government decides these days what is right and wrong.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

You make a good point, I admit that I felt awkward when writing "gay wedding cake" for the very reason you mention.

Let me attempt to clarify, please. They ordered a cake specifically for a gay wedding ceremony. The product is not exactly the same. They had a man and a woman on top? Perhaps they had a sheet cake decorated with "Just Married Tim and Greg?" The article indicates that the baker was asked for a wedding cake for a gay ceremony, he knew it and the customers knew it.

As I believe the article states, he had served gay people before. If the product was exactly the same, he would have served them again.

I agree "gay wedding cake" is sloppy usage, and I apologize for that, but your main point remains in error absent further information.

With respect,
Charles1952
edit on 8-6-2013 by charles1952 because: Delete surplus



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Having read your answer the points are very clear. It is not a case of discrimination. If it were, then he would not hire gay people, nor would he even consider servicing or providing services to the gay community. According to what was stated, he has employed gay people. He has made cakes for gay clientel. The only thing that this baker is not doing, is making a wedding cake for same sex couples, and is refusing to do such.

Is that a case of discrimination? If it is, then it is one of the weakest cases out there. There is a very fine line between discrimination and just simple bad business decision.

But then again, if the only point is that he is refusing to provide wedding cakes to the same sex couples, the question could be asked, is such even recognized in the state of Colorado? Does the State of Colorado allow for same sex couples to legally wed in the state?

while they may allow for the recognition of civil unions, it is not the same as an actual marriage.

But back to the other question, what exactly are these couples hoping to achieve, by going through the long rout of taking legal action against one baker?

It is like the question that was asked during the Admendment 2 debate, What is the real reason for a person to come out of the closet, to gain special priveledges, or to let others know that they are or are not?

There are too many questions that are not being answered, and the links that I have seen is not very clear on what is and is not permissible by the law, and in any court case definitions have to be very specific.

But here is the other question, what if this baker just decideds that he has had enough, it is possible and probable, and decideds that he is tired of same sex couples coming in and causing him grief for wedding cakes, after law suits, it would be very possible, could any same sex couple trust what this man provides in the way of a cake? Would you?



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 


Indeed,

i can comprehend the 'Point' of the lawsuit, to bring about awareness, or just to piss him off, who really knows but the two starting the lawsuit

i can also comprehend your point about it making things messier for both sides as the legal system would have to be 'Fair',

my thing is, discrimination should never happen, gay straight, black white, both sides should refrain from basing anything of discriminating factors,



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


You are right. That bus driver obviously believed Rosa Parks should have not been allowed the convenience reserved for the white passengers by sitting up front. So she was told to move to the back.

I guess in your world, she should just be happy that the bus line would serve "her kind" to begin with?

The logic you are using just does not hold up with what we have developed as a cultural norm in our nation. Love it or hate it....blame our forebears for walking us down this path. Yet....here we are. Once again wanting to deny equal treatment to one group or another.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


In my world there is no her 'kind'. There is no black, white or gay. Only Americans. Each day we are chipped away at by those like who want to bring about equality by taking away rights and causing division, not unity. You give up your freedoms so we can all be the same. Why? Uniqueness is what makes progress. A voice is what makes change. Not targeted attacks on those who do not agree with you.

Rosa was a black woman who had no choice in the color she was born with and trying to compare black suffering to this case is simply wrong. Miss Parks had balls the size of a bull to do what she did. Miss Parks did not have a choice. She was just sick of having to roll over. These guys did.

Again, These two targeted someone who did not agree with their thoughts as did the other attention seekers. To even pull the race card is completely off base, and sad.

Those were real struggles

Anyone who would compare Rosa Parks to two gay men needing a wedding cake are reaching and using a real struggle to promote their own agenda.

edit on 8-6-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


In my world there is no her 'kind'. There is no black, white or gay. Only Americans. Each day we are chipped away at by those like who want to bring about equality by taking away rights and causing division, not unity. You give up your freedoms so we can all be the same. Why? Uniqueness is what makes progress. A voice is what makes change. Not targeted attacks on those who do not agree with you.


what you call a targeted attack, others may call patronizing a business. Bottom line is, the business violated the law. They sought to deny services to someone because of a characteristic of that person. That is the definition of discrimination. I find it difficult to understand how discriminatory behavior can be defended.



Rosa was a black woman who had no choice in the color she was born with and trying to compare black suffering to this case is simply wrong. Miss Parks had balls the size of a bull to do what she did. Miss Parks did not have a choice. She was just sick of having to roll over. These guys did.


It is your opinion that they have a choice in their sexuality. Having raised a gay son and seen him grow and develop, I must say that I have a different opinion from you.

But as I have mentioned, it is hard to understand how one can defend discriminatory behavior.



Again, These two targeted someone who did not agree with their thoughts as did the other attention seekers. To even pull the race card is completely off base, and sad.


I am not pulling any race card. I am a white guy, and have no race card to pull. I am pointing out that discrimination is discrimination. You are seeming to want to pick and choose which discrimination you are ok with, and make it feel better by calling it "attention seeking". You are ignoring the discrimination that is happening, and the fact that it violated the law of the land.



Those were real struggles


As the father of a son who is gay, and having seen the struggles he has, I would like to point out that discriminatory behaviors towards gay people are real struggles, too. Even if you are being dismissive of it.



Anyone who would compare Rosa Parks to two gay men needing a wedding cake are reaching and using a real struggle to promote their own agenda.

edit on 8-6-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)


So we are going to have some kind of contest of what is real struggle and what is not? That is your standard? Some arbitrary and subjective methodology of what is worthy of being a "real struggle" and what is not?

I say you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. I say that discrimination is discrimination Be it a gay couple, a black lady on the bus, a disabled kid trying to access his school, or a Muslim family being harrassed in a neighborhood in the middle of Somewhere, USA. I don't discriminate when it comes to discrimination. it is all wrong, and I will not blame the person being discriminated against for what they are suffering. Next thing you know, we will blame the victims of rape, too.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that you've missed the point a bit.

They sought to deny services to someone because of a characteristic of that person.
That's not quite accurate. They have not discriminated against gay customers or employees. They are discriminating against that product, a cake celebrating same-sex marriage.

The article leads me to believe that had the couple ordered cupcakes there would be no trouble at all. It's the product, not the person, that they're discriminating against.

That makes a real difference in the analysis.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join