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: 17
18
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 12:32 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.



taking what rights away? by making a law against discrimination? i concur there should never have to be laws, people should just never discriminate, it's sad when legalities have to be adopted because people can't be tolerate of other people, not agreeing with something is fine, as i've always said, you don't agree with me being gay? you don't agree with 'Homosexuality' you are never 'forced', but when does it cross into discrimination?




posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


No, patronizing a business that is known to not make same sex marriage cakes is a targeted attack. The baker did not discriminate because they are gay, but because of gay marriage. These are two separate things entirely.

I am also not defending discrimination in my mind. I am stating that this person has the right, based on his religious beliefs, to not make a cake. What give you the right to make someone else do something for an act that is not even legal to begin with?

It is not my opinion they had a choice of being gay, i was making a comparison as I have stated in other posts. Being homosexual is genetic.Period. In fact, a male who is born 3rd or 4th in a line of children is more likely based on chemicals released by the mother so choice can come into play not by the child, but the choice of how many children one may have. This is another discussion entirety though.

Comparing the struggles that blacks had for equal rights to these two guys getting a cake is just not a good argument. I am not saying that a child who is gay does not have struggles but compared to Rosa, there are a lot more things in place in this day and age to assist that child. If you have a gay son you would know that as I do.

The is not discriminating against a gay couple. He is stating he does not believe in gay marriage. he just does not want to make a cake based on his own religious beliefs. It is hard to do that, to make a stand, and those two men if anything should understand that and not make someone else have hardship as they surely have.

Now you are going from blacks to rape victims to try and prove a point to that a gay couple "has the right' to make someone create a cake that to that persons belief system is wrong.

It would be like telling a kid who is gay he cannot be although he believes it, knows it and has faith he is.

You are not as tolerant as you think you are. I am not talking out both sides of my mouth but as I have seen many times on these boards, I sincerely hope you are not trying to pull a fast one with the "my son is gay" comment. I call you on it....



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


A law against discrimination...not a law against not making a wedding cake for a gay marriage.The baker will make a cake for you if you are gay just not for a wedding. It is egregious belief in the sanctity of marriage, not being gay.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


No, patronizing a business that is known to not make same sex marriage cakes is a targeted attack. The baker did not discriminate because they are gay, but because of gay marriage. These are two separate things entirely.


Poor attempt at a diversion.

Marriage is not the issue. It is that the marriage is between gay people. It is discriminating against gay people. Period.



I am also not defending discrimination in my mind. I am stating that this person has the right, based on his religious beliefs, to not make a cake. What give you the right to make someone else do something for an act that is not even legal to begin with?


Then if it is not legal in his state, he isnt making a wedding cake. Your argument makes it all look even more stupid.

The act that is not legal in Colorado is the act of denying something to a gay person that is not denied to heteros. In Colorado it is not illegal to be married to a same sex person. What is illegal is for the nuptuals to be carried out in Colorado. There is no merit to what you are saying. The only illegal act was on the part of the shop keeper, based on Colorado law.

Besides that, what he did was wrong. Discrimination is wrong, and we shouldnt need laws to tell us that.



It is not my opinion they had a choice of being gay, i was making a comparison as I have stated in other posts. Being homosexual is genetic.Period. In fact, a male who is born 3rd or 4th in a line of children is more likely based on chemicals released by the mother so choice can come into play not by the child, but the choice of how many children one may have. This is another discussion entirety though.

Comparing the struggles that blacks had for equal rights to these two guys getting a cake is just not a good argument. I am not saying that a child who is gay does not have struggles but compared to Rosa, there are a lot more things in place in this day and age to assist that child. If you have a gay son you would know that as I do.


Degree of struggle is irrelevant. Struggle is struggle. It is like two guys trying to talk about whose injury was worse. It is a silly and subjective argument. The fact I was promoting is that discrimination is wrong, no matter what is being discriminated against.



The is not discriminating against a gay couple. He is stating he does not believe in gay marriage. he just does not want to make a cake based on his own religious beliefs. It is hard to do that, to make a stand, and those two men if anything should understand that and not make someone else have hardship as they surely have.


DIscrimination is belittling. Humiliating. It is a bullying tactic. To use religious conviction is baloney. It is masking bigotry in religion, and that is offensive in and of itself.



Now you are going from blacks to rape victims to try and prove a point to that a gay couple "has the right' to make someone create a cake that to that persons belief system is wrong.

It would be like telling a kid who is gay he cannot be although he believes it, knows it and has faith he is.

You are not as tolerant as you think you are. I am not talking out both sides of my mouth but as I have seen many times on these boards, I sincerely hope you are not trying to pull a fast one with the "my son is gay" comment. I call you on it....



Call me on it. I don't care. Because I certainly hope you don't think that is actually going to go anywhere. I have a long, well established membership. Somewhere in my thousands of posts you can find quite a few mentions about my oldest son being gay. I would bet I posted something once or twice on my blog about it, too. Have fun fishing.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


A law against discrimination...not a law against not making a wedding cake for a gay marriage.The baker will make a cake for you if you are gay just not for a wedding. It is egregious belief in the sanctity of marriage, not being gay.


Does he make wedding cakes? Yes? Then not making them for gays is discrimination. I just don't know how you are not seeing that.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
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.


You don't discriminate against a product. A wedding cake for a gay person is no different than a wedding cake for heteros. There isn't some gay ingredient that is added in, or extra sparkles or something. It is a cake. THe difference is the customer.

What will the shop owner not put on the cake? Is it images of two couples that are same sex? Or is it two names of two people who are the same sex? What if mom and daughter want a cake made to celebrate a shared birthday....would they be denied a cake that had their names on it?

The fact is, the shop owners "litmus test" for making a cake is if it is for a hetero couple, not a gay couple. Certainly he will serve gay people.. But he is making a political statement by not making wedding cakes for gay couples. His hateful behavior has made him a target, and I honestly cannot feel any sympathy for him.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


A law against discrimination...not a law against not making a wedding cake for a gay marriage.The baker will make a cake for you if you are gay just not for a wedding. It is egregious belief in the sanctity of marriage, not being gay.


but it coincides with being 'Gay' same sex marriage

personally i've seen quite a bit of discrimination, and in my early twenties i know i will face a lot more, i personally would not want to give my money to someone who didn't believe i had the right to marry, so i would not have sought his service,

that is not taking away his right to think that way, or anyway,



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


indeed, it's easy to mask bigotry and intolerance with 'religion' as everyone has the right to their belief, but when it crosses into discrimination it's wrong, not the belief in 'Religion' or 'non-religion' the discriminatory actions against an individual

i concur a Cake is a Cake, it's the way society has divided us into 'Sub-Human' for being 'Gay' it was said above we are striping away rights by fighting for equality, but what about our rights that we have to fight for?

in the End i am a Human, and you are a Human, me being Gay doesn't alter that



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Why do keep arguing and defending him?
This isn't about freedom, creative rights and harrassnent of a poor baker, it's about saying enough is enough and rooting out those who think this like guy and are treating people & customers this way & shining a light on their discriminating ways.
What he did is against the law in CO and he should be punished with the full force of the law.

Anybody is free to hold any opinion they like, however abhorrent and disgusting that view may be, but when that view leaves the parameters of your mind and crosses into the real world and affects people and breaks laws, then we have a problem.
The guy either needs to make the cake and cakes for anyone who wants one, in accordance with state law or he needs to close his business and do something else.

This reminds me of the gay couple in the UK who were refused accommodation by a religious couple on the grounds of their sexuality.
They won that case and hopefully this idiot loses his.

link





edit on 9-6-2013 by stargatetravels because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-6-2013 by stargatetravels because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



Originally posted by charles1952
They had a man and a woman on top? Perhaps they had a sheet cake decorated with "Just Married Tim and Greg?"


The many articles state that they both entered the shop and said, "We're getting married and want to get a cake for the ceremony." At that, the baker shut them down.

Very few wedding cakes have toy figures on top. In fact, it's considered pretty gauche these days. Same with writing. This wasn't a "Happy Birthday, Larry" cake.

Here is the cake they eventually got for their very posh affair. No scrawling words, no plastic figures on top:



www.huffingtonpost.com...



Charlie and Dave were married in Provincetown, Mass., on Sept. 16, 2012. Their wedding cake was beautiful.



If the product was exactly the same, he would have served them again.


One would think. He had served gay people for birthdays and other occasions, but refused to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding because of his personal beliefs about gay marriage.

reply to post by charles1952
 



Originally posted by charles1952
It's the product, not the person, that they're discriminating against.


You are incorrect. They had not even ordered a cake when the baker refused. They had not tasted, looked at, discussed or determined what KIND of wedding cake they wanted. The product, at the time of refusal was "a wedding cake". No more details than that.

.
edit on 6/9/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 



Originally posted by sdcigarpig
It is not a case of discrimination.


It is discrimination. He makes WEDDING cakes for straight couples and apparently dogs. But "Because the couple asking for a wedding cake is GAY", he refused.

I understand what you're saying and others in this thread have said the same, but you are mistaken. The baker provides a service (making wedding cakes for weddings) to the public. It's one of his services. But because the citizens are gay, he refused. I don't expect you to agree, but that is the law.



Does the State of Colorado allow for same sex couples to legally wed in the state?


No. But that's irrelevant. Dog weddings (or dog civil unions) aren't legal either. And he happily provided a cake for a dog wedding.



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?


Forcing him to comply with the law.
Elevate visibility of gay discrimination to the public.
Punish him for the business practices that discriminate against gay people.



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?


There is no way I would eat the cake. It's not about getting the man to make their cake. It's so the next time a gay couple walks on there, he cannot legally refuse them a wedding cake. If he is found to "do something" to the cake, then he is more of a bigot than I thought and I hope he gets caught. I'm sure the community will have their eyes on him. The actual reasons for this case are listed above, as I understand it.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



Originally posted by esdad71
Rosa was a black woman who had no choice in the color she was born with...


So... If black people DID have a choice, are you suggesting that it would be OK to discriminate against them?



Again, These two targeted someone who did not agree with their thoughts...


So did Rosa Parks. She targeted the bus system. She could have walked, ridden a bike, got a ride with a friend or taken a cab. Was she just an "attention seeker"? Using your words, she was "patronizing a business that is known to not" allow blacks to sit in the front.



It is not my opinion they had a choice of being gay, i was making a comparison as I have stated in other posts.


Then why did you say that Rosa Parks "had no choice in the color she was born with"? These guys had no choice in the sexuality they were born with...

Your argument sounds an awful lot like, "Well the girl that got raped was kind of asking for it, since she was walking through an alley at night in a short dress... She should have gotten a cab or called a friend." You're trying to make excuses for the perpetrator of discrimination and trying to blame the victim.

Your argument fell apart pages ago, and it's not getting any better.
edit on 6/9/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
wow, i cannot believe how many members of ATS support economic terrorism


so, any advice on which stores we should shut down first ??
maybe Lane Bryant ?
or perhaps any Bridal shop that doesn't offer fittings for men wanting to wear a 'wedding gown' ?
better yet, how 'bout any hall, convention center or recreational area that refuses to book the reception ??

or maybe just the Big & Tall shops that serve MEN only ?
oh, here's a good one ... i think we should target shoe stores that never have size 5 in stock ... talk about discriminating practices.

then again, perhaps it's time to shut down or sue the likes of businesses in South Beach that cater to the gay crowd ... how dare they ??

i'm beginning to think the first targets should be the mosques that double as 'community centers', yet don't permit women inside without a male escort !!!!
how discriminating is that practice ???
if it is providing 'public' accomodation, then it should be sued to the max and shut down.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
I am of two minds on this sort of thing.

As a business owner you do have the right to do or not do business with someone.

However the question here is does the business owner have the right to discriminate against someone because of the way they are.

And let's look past the argument of whether or not being gay is a choice or you are born gay.

Does the same business owner have the right to discriminate against someone if they are black, hispanic, chinese, muslim or hindu? If the answer is no why does he get a pass on discriminating on gay people?

As far as I'm concerned if his money is green I'll take it. That should be all business owners philosophies.


For most businesses this will be the case- in a supposedly free society we should allow freedom for the tiny minority that doesn't- somebody else will be willing to take the money

This is a ridiculous bit of attention seeking from this homosexual couple, dressed up as "rights"



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



Originally posted by Honor93
so, any advice on which stores we should shut down first ??


No one is talking about "shutting down" the bakery.




maybe Lane Bryant ?


Do they refuse to offer their oversized clothing to a certain group? No? Then there's no discrimination.



or perhaps any Bridal shop that doesn't offer fittings for men wanting to wear a 'wedding gown' ?


That's discrimination. If they offer wedding gowns and refuse a man who wants one, then they are discriminating, based on gender.



better yet, how 'bout any hall, convention center or recreational area that refuses to book the reception ??


Do they offer their services to straight people but not gay? Then that's discrimination.



or maybe just the Big & Tall shops that serve MEN only ?


If they don't allow a woman to buy their men's clothing, then that's discrimination based on gender.



oh, here's a good one ... i think we should target shoe stores that never have size 5 in stock ... talk about discriminating practices.


It's clear from the questions you're asking that you don't really know what discrimination means.



then again, perhaps it's time to shut down or sue the likes of businesses in South Beach that cater to the gay crowd ... how dare they ??


No one is talking about shutting anyone down. Why do you bring that up? If the businesses that cater to gays REFUSE to sell their products to straight people, then they're discriminating. If not, they're fine.


edit on 6/9/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Credenceskynyrd
 



Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
This is a ridiculous bit of attention seeking from this homosexual couple, dressed up as "rights"


And was Rosa Parks "seeking attention" by insisting on riding in the front of the bus when she could have just chosen to keep riding in the back? Or was she making a statement about her rights as a human being?



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


How many times does it need to to be spelled out to you?

The gay couple did NOT ask for ANYTHING extra that the baker does not do already. How is this concept a hard concept?

Oh, I know, he doesn't make "gay" wedding cakes because a cake can be gay right?



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

from all of your arguments posted in this thread, it's quite clear that you don't understand what discrimination is but that is besides the point.

all of what i listed are practicing public accomodating operations that discriminate in one form or another. leave it to the small-minded ones to not see it.

btw, the bakery in question has and does sell their products to plenty of gay customers ... why can't you accept that 'weddings' are a religious event ... one of which they choose not to participate which is still their right, any day and every day.
edit on 9-6-2013 by Honor93 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by Honor93
 


How many times does it need to to be spelled out to you?

The gay couple did NOT ask for ANYTHING extra that the baker does not do already. How is this concept a hard concept?

Oh, I know, he doesn't make "gay" wedding cakes because a cake can be gay right?

since 'gay marriages' aren't something they ever participate in, why do you figure they should be forced to do so ?

the 'couple' could have purchased a 'cake' and used it to their liking but that isn't what they requested was it ?



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

A gay couple is pursuing a discrimination complaint against a Colorado bakery, saying the business refused them a wedding cake to honor their Massachusetts ceremony, and alleging that the owners have a history of turning away same-sex couples.
Why would a gay couple go to a bakery that is known to turn away same sex couple then claim they were:

" angry and I felt dehumanized and mortified,"
I think they did it because they feel the need to force their life style choice onto people who do not support it.

So are we saying that homosexuality trumps religious beliefs? Sexual orientation is a federally protected class but freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. The owner said ' making a wedding cake for gay couples would violate his Christian religious beliefs " Personally I think the owner should be the winner in this case. He should not have to abandon his right to his religious beliefs to accommodate a protected class.

*quotes and text taken from here
edit on 9-6-2013 by AuntB because: link



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join