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: 21
18
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 

Dear markosity1973,

Wonderful! For a while, it looks like we both can come out of the underground closet so to speak. I'd really like to consider your real life example instead of my hypotheticals.

Your's is a tough one for me, primarily because so many things are going on. I'll try not to get too disjointed.

If you know, not just have an opinion, one option for you is notifying the police along with the security videos of the purchase. That doesn't deal with your decision to sell or not, just a suggestion in your real world situation.

You've offered two good reasons why you have to make the sale even though you don't want to.

One is self preservation, for you and the lumber yard owner. In the real world, that alone would be enough to decide the issue. I think it's more of a practical issue that a moral one, though. In these cases, plus the baker, the situation can be considered as "We don't care what you want, do as we tell you or we'll ruin you. The only difference I see in these examples is that the baker is saying "Bring it on! I'm not going to give in."

Your other issue is that for you, the law says you have to serve anyone with any product, for any reason, at any time. That's not something I'm used to dealing with. We allow stores to refuse service to anyone as long as it isn't because they're gay or Black, or any of several other categories.

What I see in this thread is a disagreement over how to frame the issue. Benevolent Heretic and associates are saying that anything a gay couple asks for has to be supplied, or your discriminating against them.

My position is that history shows he doesn't discriminate against gays, and that he's refusing to sell such a cake to anyone, gay or straight, therefore no discrimination.

Benevolent Heretic is focusing on the identity of the customers doing the asking, and I'm focusing on what they are asking for. Now you know how we get lawsuits.

With respect,
Charles1952




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

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by markosity1973
 

Wonderful! For a while, it looks like we both can come out of the underground closet so to speak. I'd really like to consider your real life example instead of my hypotheticals.

Your's is a tough one for me, primarily because so many things are going on. I'll try not to get too disjointed.

If you know, not just have an opinion, one option for you is notifying the police along with the security videos of the purchase. That doesn't deal with your decision to sell or not, just a suggestion in your real world situation.


The police would only take interest in the video if they were investigating a particular person or crime. It is lawful for these people to buy the knives, which is why I have to sell them. It is only when they leave the store and that knife gets used unlawfully can the police do something about it. It's a classic legal catch 22.



You've offered two good reasons why you have to make the sale even though you don't want to.

One is self preservation, for you and the lumber yard owner. In the real world, that alone would be enough to decide the issue. I think it's more of a practical issue that a moral one, though. In these cases, plus the baker, the situation can be considered as "We don't care what you want, do as we tell you or we'll ruin you. The only difference I see in these examples is that the baker is saying "Bring it on! I'm not going to give in."

Your other issue is that for you, the law says you have to serve anyone with any product, for any reason, at any time. That's not something I'm used to dealing with. We allow stores to refuse service to anyone as long as it isn't because they're gay or Black, or any of several other categories.



Yes, we have also banned things like female only gyms and the classic old 'No shirt, no shoes, no service signs on bars and restaurants.



What I see in this thread is a disagreement over how to frame the issue. Benevolent Heretic and associates are saying that anything a gay couple asks for has to be supplied, or your discriminating against them.

My position is that history shows he doesn't discriminate against gays, and that he's refusing to sell such a cake to anyone, gay or straight, therefore no discrimination.

Benevolent Heretic is focusing on the identity of the customers doing the asking, and I'm focusing on what they are asking for. Now you know how we get lawsuits.


Well with these new anti discrimination laws things get rather impossible rather quickly. As I have mentioned, benign forms of discrimination under these laws like female only gyms are now outlawed. I have also raised the point that gay only bars with their entry policies are now in the category of discrimination under the new laws. The spirit of the law is to protect everyone's rights but at the moment they are written in a rather black and white way that means that things that were never were and probably not intended to be a problem are now an issue.

The wedding cake should simply be a case of bad customer service and the customers should just do what people did before the laws existed - tell everyone about it and ask them not to shop there. I know the power of this practise and a business that wants to survive will do what it takes to make a customer happy, especially with all the social media site on the internet these days.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 

Dear markosity1973,

WOW! I'm surprised.

The police would only take interest in the video if they were investigating a particular person or crime.
You mean if you went to the police and said "Here's a video of three guys who just bought whacking great machetes. They said they were going to cut up Bob Smith for informing on them," the police wouldn't do anything? Again, I'm surprised.

Here in the states we have facilities that only allow gays, and only allow women. I'm puzzled.

Do you think that this wedding cake dust up is a case of doing the right thing in the wrong way? Sort of an "ends justify the means" situation?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Phillips has received death threats since the story went public, but also claims his business has increased thanks to people dropping in to show their support.


www.imdb.com...

death threats by the tolerance police



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Death threats from who? i read the article and it didn't say, i, as many others have had many 'death threats', there are wrong people on both sides in he world, that we can't deny, death threats are unjustified and only bring a higher negative spin

but those people don't justify discrimination



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   
it's time people Put down the magnifying glass and pick up the mirror, this is a question, No T, No Shade

are you not accepting the fact that it was refused based on discriminatory thought because you could see yourself in that situation?



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
it's time people Put down the magnifying glass and pick up the mirror, this is a question, No T, No Shade

are you not accepting the fact that it was refused based on discriminatory thought because you could see yourself in that situation?


I just posted something which is a fact, by an unbiased media source. My observation is that death threats over a wedding cake is where this politically correct society has gone. The tolerant ones prove themselves to be more violent than tolerant. How coy of you to justify it while pretending to deny at the same time.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 02:24 AM
link   
i never justified death threats, i said you will always have wrong people on both sides, just because i am gay doesn't mean i believe every gay person to always be correct,

i said, Put down the magnifying glass and pick up the mirror, do people think they would discriminate if put in a position?



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


Looking in the mirror and walking a mile in someone else's shoes are two different things. I took the mirror statement to mean to look at myself in the mirror and see if my actions are reflected back at me, while walking a mile in someone else's shoes would be the way to identify with another person. That's just my perspective. I cannot and will not put myself in the shoes of someone who makes death threats over a wedding cake. Particularly when it has been shown that there are other cake bakers in the area who would have been more than willing to take the gay couple's money for a sugary item. So it's not that they couldn't have obtained a cake, it's that one cake baker refused and they just cannot let that happen.
If I was the cake baker, I likely would have just made the cake. That's putting my self in my own shoes. But I think the incident is indicative of push back. To me, the indoctrination of 7 year olds with picture books is a much more virulent form of abuse. And that is happening in the schoolrooms of America as the Common Core standards are being enforced with corporate premiere indoctrinator Bill Gates at the helm.
The death threats are indicative of a generation of people who believe they have a right to threaten the lives of people who don't agree with their lifestyle, but the most virulent form of abuse comes as the indoctrination of innocent children, who have no defenses as their parents are being taken out of the picture by decree of the all-Supreme State.




just because i am gay doesn't mean i believe every gay person to always be correct,


It is commendable that you would want to think for yourself and not because you are a member of some group. We are social beings, but sometimes GroupThink destroys individuality.
edit on 10-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by markosity1973
 

Dear markosity1973,

WOW! I'm surprised.

The police would only take interest in the video if they were investigating a particular person or crime.
You mean if you went to the police and said "Here's a video of three guys who just bought whacking great machetes. They said they were going to cut up Bob Smith for informing on them," the police wouldn't do anything? Again, I'm surprised.


If we had just cause as in the scenario you have just mention then yes, the police would take interest as a clear threat has been made and death threats are unlawful. However, someone in full gang regalia just coming in and buying a knife is not unlawful so the police cannot do anything, no matter how rude they are to to us up until the point a threat is made.



Here in the states we have facilities that only allow gays, and only allow women. I'm puzzled.

Do you think that this wedding cake dust up is a case of doing the right thing in the wrong way? Sort of an "ends justify the means" situation?


Yes that is exactly what this cake scenario brings to light. I wish it were not a gay couple making the lawsuit so that people would not write this off as a gay activist issue.

When the law states that it is now illegal to deny entry or service to people based upon race, gender, religion or sexual orientation including transgenderism it means that a women's only gym is now illegal. It also means that say a men's football team would have to admit a female member - and she could demand that she has
the right to her own change room because of the potential of sexual harassment, potentially costing the club huge amounts of money if one is not already available.

These anti discrimination laws are well meant, but they have implications that reach beyond the original intention of what is written. The laws are a great idea and are meant to help out but they are also causing problems and need to be fine tuned somewhat in order to not tip the balance beyond sensibility.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Depending on the state's laws, the proprietors in your examples could certainly be sued if they refused to sell BASED ON certain criteria of the BUYER, including, but not limited to race, religion, gender, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. If the proprietor simply "disapproved" of how the customer planned to use the items and therefore refused to sell them, I have no reason to believe he would be accused of legal discrimination, but I do not know the laws around that and I don't care to research them.


In your first example (Muslims), the seller may disapprove of the customer's plans regardless what religion the customer was. So, the customer would have to prove in court that the refusal was specifically because of his religion.

In your second example, you don't mention the race of the BUYER, which is what's important. The race (or religion) of the seller is inconsequential. It is the buyer who is protected from discrimination in these situations. I assume you mean the buyer was white. And, as in the first example, a lawsuit could certainly be brought, but the buyer would have to prove that it was because of his race that he was refused the lumber. It's likely that the black seller would refuse any person who was going to burn a cross, regardless of their race, so I think it would be a hard case to prove. The fact that the seller disapproved or was black doesn't enter into a discrimination case.

In the case of the wedding cake, it's clear that the baker would sell the VERY same product TO BE USED for the very same event (a marriage celebration) but makes the distinction solely BASED ON criteria of the buyers' sexuality (a GAY marriage celebration). The fact that the seller is straight and/or Christian is irrelevant.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 


As I understand it, some states make exceptions to their gender discrimination laws based on privacy concerns. This is a very interesting and informative paper:

Single Sex Health Clubs


Courts and legislatures have recognized public accommodations (including rest rooms
and showers) in which gender-based discrimination is acceptable because of a compelling
and overriding privacy issue. One court case, discussed below, has established that
members’ privacy interests at women-only health clubs can legally justify the exclusion
of men.

A women-only policy is not discriminatory if the club can establish that the privacy right
of its members is the basis for the exclusion of men. Information about the criteria
required to establish a privacy-based defense of a women-only policy is discussed below.
...
Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Tennessee and Wisconsin
have exempted health clubs from laws which otherwise prohibit sex discrimination in
public accommodations.


And there are Curves for Women franchises in 49 states and DC.
edit on 6/10/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Excellent work finding that. This is exactly the sort of discrimination that is acceptable and it obvious that the 8 states that allow single sex female clubs have had the issue raise it's head and adjusted the law to allow it.
It will be interesting to see if / what other organisations challenge the law and what the ruling is.

edit on 10-6-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diisenchanted
reply to post by grey580
 


Any one who knows anything about Christianity know that what you just said is a load of crap.

The old testament is the law unto the Jews

Christians believe the new testament is the law unto them.

What you said is from the old testament. You should try to get your facts straight!.

Regardless of your opinion we still have freedom of religion and freedom of choice! Perhaps you would like to do away with that too?


Yeah.... only in the old testament is homosexuality referred to as an abomination.
If what you say is true then why do many christians refer to it as such?

And if you would of read my posts here. You would have read that I'm of two minds of this.
And that the best course of action here is for the gay couple to go to another bakery and tell all their friends to boycott the homophobic bakery.

Freedom of religion is saved and freedom of choice lives on strong. Suing the bakery is just a waste of time and money.

Though let me ask you a question. If the bakery were to deny service if the couple was an interracial couple. Man and woman. Would that be right or wrong and why?

edit on 10-6-2013 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by esdad71


Sorry, but this has gone beyond a cake for a two guys who want a wedding cake. It is about telling people what they can and cannot believe in and being punished for it. This is America. When the Supreme court recognizes gay marriage then Jack Phillips needs to get his ass baking. Until then, order a dog cake....




No one is telling him what he can and cannot believe. If he wants to believe that blacks are nasty smelly animals who are inferior to whites. he can believe that. There are no laws against personal beliefs of any kind. What he CANNOT do is refuse to sell a cake to a black person simply because of his personal belief. Same thing with gays or gay marriage. He can be against gay marriage if he wants, but he cannot refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.


He is not refusing to sell to a gay person. He is refusing to sell a cake to be used for something he does not believe in. He has gay workers and has made cakes for gays before, it is in the articles that have been posted.

So, why can he be subject to a discrimination suit for something that is not even legal to being with? That is the problem here that I keep trying to bring to the forefront but everyone makes this a 'gay' issue and it is not.

Therefore, if this was to move forward, you could bring a case against someone for something that was not legal or had a precedent. If the government wanted anything suppressed, they could back that interest group and it would be done no matter the protection afforded you by the Constitution.

This is much bigger than a cake. You have to look at the big picture but many of you are not.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



Originally posted by esdad71
So, why can he be subject to a discrimination suit for something that is not even legal to being with?


What is not legal? Selling a wedding cake to a gay person is legal. That's all the baker is being asked to do. No one is asking him to issue a marriage license or to marry them or to participate, in any way, in any illegal activity.

It's clear that the baker would sell the VERY same product TO BE USED for the very same event (a marriage celebration) but makes the distinction solely BASED ON criteria of the buyers' sexuality (a GAY marriage celebration).

edit on 6/10/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Is gay marriage legal Colorado? Just answer that question.
edit on 10-6-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Gay marriage isn't illegal, it just wasn't recognized or authorized in Colorado when this couple attempted to order a cake. No one was asking the baker to aid and abet in a crime.


And Colorado is facing a major milestone of its own this week: Civil unions will start on May 1, with the Office of the Clerk in Denver opening at midnight. Civil unions are better than nothing, but they're still no substitute for full marriage equality. The good news is that voters in Colorado appear ready to upgrade from civil unions: Some 51 percent favor marriage equality, with just 43 percent opposing it. Among voters under 30, that support is at an amazing 74 percent.
www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


So the answer is no, it was not legal when they asked and still is not at this time. I am looking at this from a legal standpoint, not an emotional one. Everyone's rights can be affected by a wrong decision in this case.

I am not against gay marriage and I have stated this numerous times but I am against ignorance when it is propagated and not based in fact. The law protects a person who is gay, not the act of two of them getting married. You can try to state it in any number of ways, but it is not protected and cannot be because it is not at this time legal.

Now, if gay marriage is legal in Colorado, no matter his religious beliefs, by LAW he would be held responsible for a fine if he did not make the cake in the State of Colorado, However, if he had a good lawyer, it would go to the Federal level where gay marriage is not legal and would be overturned.

again, like I said, let gay marriage be legal so that they can pump money into the free market economy and also give lawyers some more work when they get divorced. It is a win-win for gays who can celebrate marriage and wedding planners/etc because there would be more work. A smart politician would use the argument that gay marriage could help with unemployment. Very surprised no special interest group has used that but if someone reads it here, I can see it on CNN or MSNBC in two weeks.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Is gay marriage legal Colorado? Just answer that question.
edit on 10-6-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)


Are you still asking this? I, among several other people, have answered it over and over and over.

No, it is not illegal in Colorado. No gay people who happen to be married will be imprisoned. There is nothing illegal about two gay people being married. The illegal act would be getting married in the state of Colorado, which was not happening.

You are ignoring facts so hard that I is becoming hard to continue thinking that there isn't some kind of prejudice at play here.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join