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: 29
18
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
OH and I thought I would leave this here for the types that actually want to learn something.

www.legalzoom.com...


The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.




posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


Yea. But in todays society we are seeing full blown revolution as it relates to sexuality. When I was a young man (in my teens), being gay was taboo and kept secret. Now, in our local west Texas high school, we see openly gay youths free from the shackles of backwards society. The rules are still the same: no "PDA". As it should be for everyone (i hate seeing couples make out in public).

Tolerance is most definitely waxing. The couple certainly had other more appropriate options.

Or, stated otherwise, i typically don't end up in places I am unwanted unless I am looking for a fight. And there is no moral high ground on picking a fight.

Regardless....yes, they were within their rights. But it is like the right to free speech....it also carries a right to be silent. Often times the former is exercised when the latter should be used instead.

ETA: I get the feeling that it was an action you likely would not have chosen. Which should speak volumes, if true.

edit on 11-6-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)


Indeed, i personally wouldn't give my money to someone knowing he didn't accept what it was intended for, now if i didn't know prior, and was denied because of the reasons, i still wouldn't sue, as i have stated, money would not take away the 'discriminatory action',



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


So you would discriminate against a business owner who did not hold your views because he has a belief system you do not agree with. Is that how the world should live? No, it is not. If i was those two men, I would have ordered a cake for, who knows, a birthday. If he denied that. then you would have a solid case because it was based on sexualtiy and not an act between two people such as a union of same sex partners which he states he does not believe in based on his religious views. .

Be smart and make noise.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


it's not discrimination if i would avoid such situations where discrimination would come into play, he would equally not come to a gay bar, that is not discrimination,

The result of this is he discriminated because they were a 'gay couple getting married', we can all comprehend that it wasn't because he was 'Gay' but because his religion prohibited from him believing in 'gay Marriage', he denied them a service that is under law a discriminatory act,

that is all fact



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


...and how do we know he is not a closet homosexual? I mentioned the movie American Beauty once before and it is very common for those to not like in others what they do not like in themselves. Very common. He might secret listen to Queen albums dressed in leather but it is his right.




The result of this is he discriminated because they were a 'gay couple getting married', we can all comprehend that it wasn't because he was 'Gay' but because his religion prohibited from him believing in 'gay Marriage', he denied them a service that is under law a discriminatory act,


Now, they were already married. He does not believe in same sex marriage so he would not make the cake. There is no law that says, in Colorado, you have to believe in Gay marriage. Only not to discriminate against gays. So, he would make a birthday cake for them, but not something he did not believe in nor is allowed in Colorado. You can be gay and are protected but cannot get married. Maybe your anger and theirs should be directed at the state and not the baker to make gay marriage legal.

Like I said before, make your voice known for a reason to make sure all are protected, not just one group. Hope you understand where I am coming from here and stp taking offense as it is not warranted or implied towards you.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


i'm not taking offense, likewise i have not been angry to anyone,

i've posted topics concerning the laws, likewise others prior, under the law, it's a discriminatory act because he refused service based on 'Gay Marriage', indeed they were already married, and gay marriage is not recognized in Colorado, they asked for a cake to celebrate their marriage and he denied them because he doesn't believe in gay marriage, that is a discriminatory act,

those are just facts you can't deny



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


So you would discriminate against a business owner who did not hold your views because he has a belief system you do not agree with. Is that how the world should live? No, it is not. If i was those two men, I would have ordered a cake for, who knows, a birthday. If he denied that. then you would have a solid case because it was based on sexualtiy and not an act between two people such as a union of same sex partners which he states he does not believe in based on his religious views. .

Be smart and make noise.


Federal law says.

You may not deny anyone service based upon their beliefs.

It's that simple. It's discrimination.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
He does not believe in same sex marriage so he would not make the cake.


He can't discriminate based on marital status, either.


Colorado Civil Rights


PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
Race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, persons with a physical or mental disability, and marital status



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Sorry. Meaningless post.
See above.
edit on 6/12/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


But if the marital status is not recognized in Colorado, it is not protected...right? From a legal standpoint not from an emotional one. That is what will be argued in court by a good lawyer. It will then go to the Federal level.

I guess my point is that this may not be the battle that should be fought for this as it may push back the ability for gay marriage to be recognized and allowed to be legal in Colorado. That is my point.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


But if the marital status is not recognized in Colorado, it is not protected...right? From a legal standpoint not from an emotional one. That is what will be argued in court by a good lawyer. It will then go to the Federal level.

I guess my point is that this may not be the battle that should be fought for this as it may push back the ability for gay marriage to be recognized and allowed to be legal in Colorado. That is my point.



A marriage that is registered in a state is a federally recognized marriage. What you propose is not true.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Refusing Service at random(reason) = Valid.

Refusing Service on a pattern(certain types) = Discrimination.



If i randomly refused service t people and they had nothing in common, it is very well valid... but lets say i start refusing to black people or Christians or gay... and i have a history of it, then that would fall under discrimination.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



Originally posted by esdad71
But if the marital status is not recognized in Colorado, it is not protected...right?


Wrong. Their marital status is irrelevant. Just as their race, age, sexual orientation, etc. are all irrelevant. A business owner cannot discriminate against anyone because of their marital status (whether they're single or married). In Colorado, these guys are single.

You can't have it both ways. Either their marital status matters or not. In Colorado, it does not.



From a legal standpoint not from an emotional one.


You keep saying that, intimating that I am making judgments on this case from an emotional standpoint, when ALL I have done is given links to the law. Not once have I expressed an emotional or personal opinion about this case. (Except that I wouldn't eat the cake)




That is what will be argued in court by a good lawyer. It will then go to the Federal level.


A lawyer that would argue what you have been putting forth would be laughed out of court.



I guess my point is that this may not be the battle that should be fought for this as it may push back the ability for gay marriage to be recognized and allowed to be legal in Colorado. That is my point.


Nah. They've already legalized civil unions. Marriage is next. Possibly by the time this case goes to court in September.
edit on 6/12/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


So if they are single, why are they asking for a wedding cake?



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


This is what I am referring to. There have been strides to change it but it has not. Obama will not do anything so maybe the next administration will. He says it is up to the states



The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996, prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and allows each state to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states


A a federal level, it would not be recognized nor does colorado have to acknowledge. No one would laugh anyone out of court. It needs to be addressed would you not say?



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



Originally posted by esdad71
This is what I am referring to.


I know all about DOMA and it's irrelevant in this case. Federal recognition of marriage is NOT at issue here. It is a STATE law that this baker broke. Why do you keep bringing up irrelevant information? To move the goalposts, perhaps? You've been doing that this entire thread. Don't think it's going unnoticed.




It needs to be addressed would you not say?


No. It doesn't matter if they were married or not or what the state OR federal laws on marriage are. It's ALL irrelevant. The only fact that is relevant is that the baker admittedly discriminated against the couple because they were gay. Period. The baker HAS to sell them whatever he offers to everyone else. End of story.

Either you know all this and are just messing with me, you're seriously grasping at every straw, real or imagined, to make your opinion right or you really have no clue about the law at all. I haven't figured out which one (or combination) it is yet.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
If you don't consider this discriminatory, what do you consider discrimination?

taking away emotion, by your definition of 'discrimination' where does this fall under?



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I am not moving goalposts, I am looking 3 plays ahead as well as if nothing else playing devils advocate as it is not as cut and dry as you think. Remember, throughout history, laws are interpreted to mean what those making the decision need them to mean. You could have an ultra conservative judge who just throws is out and then what do you do? Go to the Federal Level, no, as there is nothing there to stand on based on DOMA.

Also, federal law has everything to do with it because that is where this will end up. You are stating it is irrelevant and I am not the only one offering a different opinion or view.

What the argument is here is making a cake for a wedding ceremony, not that they were gay. He has sold cakes to other gay people in the past, he admitted this and he has employed gay people. There is no pattern of gay hate or discrimination. Maybe that is what you are not seeing.

He was going to make a cake for the dog of two gay ladies right? That right there shows no discrimination I would say....



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 





you would discriminate against a business owner who did not hold your views because he has a belief system you do not agree with. Is that how the world should live? No, it is not. If i was those two men, I would have ordered a cake for, who knows, a birthday


They didn't even have to do that. There were other bakeries in the area who could and would do it. So this is not just about getting a nice cake for the celebration, this is now about forcing all businesses to agree with the lifestyle. This is why it is not working with market forces and why it involves the State dictating what businesses do.

I am against Totalitarianism and for a free enterprise business model. I am also against using the State to indoctrinate innocent and helpless children into a lifestyle using a Totalitarian model of education.
I hope that clears up my position here because I don't care what they do with each other.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 





He was going to make a cake for the dog of two gay ladies right? That right there shows no discrimination I would say....


I didn't know about this. Well, that's even more interesting then. Perhaps the suing couple baited him and got aggressive, just like people do here on these forums. Perhaps they already had an agenda before they even walked in. As if they knew already ahead of time what they wanted to do. I suspect this is what happened if they had this guy already targeted.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join