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: 35
18
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Or, we could talk about all the horrible things men have done throughout history and them paint them all with a wide brush... How about that?
Should all men take responsibility for what some have done?

Just something to think about when people throw labels around...




posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Why do we not use the moms in this intro, but the kids? This to me is exploitation just as this case about the cake is for some reason, now, being sensationalized. I do not agree with using children for gun rights, abortion...anything but that was my point with special interest groups and I am using this to show that the LGBT platform is just that. This case with the baker was picked up to garner attention and make strides not in giving rights but telling you how you can act and what rights you have. Why was there no attention made with the other times there was an 'issue'. Because it could not be exploited.

Link

It will be very interesting to see who the judge is that will sit on this case.


edit on 14-6-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


I just watched the video in the deleted thread....
Those children wrote a letter to him telling him what they want for the future so why not have them on? I bet they had a great day.
Children are much more accepting of others than adults...just reading this thread proves that.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



Originally posted by esdad71
Why do we not use the moms in this intro, but the kids?


As boymonkey said, the kids wrote to Obama. They have two moms and a vested interest in equal marriage rights.



This to me is exploitation just as this case about the cake is for some reason, now, being sensationalized.


I fail to see this case being sensationalized... It's a legal case brought by the ACLU. That happens all the time. How is it being sensationalized?



... but that was my point with special interest groups and I am using this to show that the LGBT platform is just that.


LGBT is a special interest group? Yes, they are.



A Special Interest Group (SIG) is a community with an interest in advancing a specific area of knowledge, learning or technology where members cooperate to affect or to produce solutions within their particular field, and may communicate, meet, and organize conferences.


What is the problem?



This case with the baker was picked up to garner attention and make strides not in giving rights but telling you how you can act and what rights you have.


I agree completely! Rights are not ours to "give" so this case is not about "giving" rights. Cases like these garner attention, remind people of the law (how to act) and informing people of what rights they have, regardless who tries to stomp on them.



Why was there no attention made with the other times there was an 'issue'. Because it could not be exploited.


If the ACLU had known about the other cases, they most certainly could have used them to bring attention to this matter (you call it exploiting, which means "make full use of and derive benefit from a resource").

Yes, gay people, LGBT allies and the ACLU are making full use of this issue to derive benefit from it, just as Rosa Parks exploited the bus incident. You clearly have your judgments about people drawing attention to their cause, but there's NOTHING inherently wrong with it and you are entitled to your judgments.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by grey580
 


Or, we could talk about all the horrible things men have done throughout history and them paint them all with a wide brush... How about that?
Should all men take responsibility for what some have done?

Just something to think about when people throw labels around...


Exactly.

How about the Roman Catholic Church.
Much to be atoned for. Even now.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


Since people keep running to race in civil rights being related to this issue:


Despised and often attacked, they courageously carried the slaves' cause for thirty years. Why have these inescapably Christian men and women been forgotten?



They were the most hated men and women in America. All across the South, rewards were posted for their lives. Southern postmasters routinely collected their pamphlets from the mail and burned them. In the North, these radicals were mobbed, shouted down, beaten up. Their houses were burned, and their printing presses were destroyed. For thirty years, to the very eve of the Civil War, the word “abolitionist” was an insult.



One reason abolitionists are forgotten is that they were inescapably Christian in their motives, means, and vocabulary. Not that all abolitionists were orthodox Christians, though a large proportion were. But even those who had left the church drew on unmistakably Christian premises, especially on one crucial point: slavery was sin.



Popular American history finds it much easier to assimilate Abraham Lincoln’s cautious, conscience-stricken path than to admire the abolitionists’ uncompromising indictment of their country’s sin. Yet without the abolitionists’ thirty years of preaching, slavery would never have become the issue Lincoln had to face.


www.christianitytoday.com...

Yes a large number of abolitionists were Christian


Hmmm, let's move to another continent, South Africa where these people in the same 'good' faith of Christianity used to to teach that Apartheid was justified in the eyes of God because of some obscure passage that quotes something like 'and their skin became blackened to show their sins' i.e all Black people were sinners and therefore keeping them separate from whites was justified.

Howabout Christianity's kooky offshoot Mormonism - If you are really good, you'll get your own planet to rule over, but only if you are white. If you're a good black person you get to live on the planet and have a white ruler.

No, Christianity has never been racist at all....



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
This is the problem with laws like this...it leads to things like this....

Link




A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.


Assemblymen Tony Ammiano goes on to say



“There’s no trampling of other people’s rights. There’s a recognition that other people have the same rights that you do. It’s also important to protect our children from prejudice.”


So it is not just cakes, ok BH? It is things like this. So, a child has no rights because a group wants recognition.

and for the last time, stop with the Rosa Parks references. It is not the same. I have never seen a sign that said NO HOMOS ALLOWED or GAY drinking fountains.
edit on 14-6-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


I believe the Rosa Parks analogy is spot on. Sure, you don't see "NO GAYS ALLOWED" in this bakers window. Because the civil rights era kind of made everyone see how stupid that was.

In any event, what you are doing is the same as those folks who say, "If we support being gay, what next....beastiality?" It is a morose argument

If the assemblyment wants to admit that children can have sexuality, then he would also have to admit that children are sexual. Is that a debate that you really want to be on the wrong side of? I suggest you just leave it alone.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


It is not about admiting sexuallity, is it about same-sex showers to not hurt the feelings of someone who is gay or transgender?

You were 16. would you not like to shower with 16 y/o girls? and the parents cannot say anything because it is protected by law. THAT is the problem. It is BS....



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Nevermind...lol
edit on 14-6-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


And there are a million stupid ideas out there. What you are using is called "The Slippery Slope Fallacy".



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


but this stupid idea came to fruition.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   


www.liveleak.com...
Would it surprise you to learn that the bill’s author, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano is a Democrat and homosexual from San Francisco? He is also heavily involved in LGBT activist groups. In 1975 Ammiano became the first public school teacher in San Francisco to publicly admit that he was a homosexual.
Read more at www.liveleak.com...


implying that because he is 'homosexual' this is being put in placed?

i believe this was more for the Transgenders to utilize the bathroom that is cohesive with their gender identity, you make the claim that all they have to do is say they are male or female,

it seems this is more media sensationalism



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
This is the problem with laws like this...it leads to things like this....

Link




A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.


Assemblymen Tony Ammiano goes on to say



“There’s no trampling of other people’s rights. There’s a recognition that other people have the same rights that you do. It’s also important to protect our children from prejudice.”


So it is not just cakes, ok BH? It is things like this. So, a child has no rights because a group wants recognition.

and for the last time, stop with the Rosa Parks references. It is not the same. I have never seen a sign that said NO HOMOS ALLOWED or GAY drinking fountains.
edit on 14-6-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)


This is one of the problems with the anti-discrimination law. I have no argument with that. It is very difficult to write a law that makes it illegal to discriminate on gender without causing problems that were unforseen.

However, think about this; If general society were well mannered and just accepted that gay people and women etc etc were part of the natural diversity of life and treated everyone the same, these laws would not be needed.

I know I gave bit of a King hit to Christianity in my last post, but it does have a lot of good in it. One particularly good belief it has to offer is Jesus's own words;

"Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." Mark 12:31

If we were all to actually listen and follow those 5 little words, there would be no fighting about any of this at all.

But we don't, so here we are 35 pages later in the thread arguing over making a cake for a gay wedding.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



Originally posted by esdad71
So, a child has no rights because a group wants recognition.


That bill is all about the child's rights. I don't know if you read the analysis of the bill, but I did. It allows for privacy of the students and even a separate facility for the gender identity students. For example, if a child was born a boy, but feels like, dresses like and identifies as a girl, and lives as a girl outside of school, "he" will not be forced to use the boy's restroom and locker room and play boy's sports and shower with boys, because of "HIS" comfort level. The parents can meet with the school and come to an agreement about how to handle the situation. They can let "him" shower after the girls, as to not make the other girls uncomfortable, or whatever. The point is, they meet the child's needs and respect their rights as human beings.



1. The pupil and/or parents must contact the school administrator or athletic director indicating that the pupil has a consistent gender identity different than the gender listed on the pupil’s school registration records, and that the student desires to participate in activities in a manner consistent with his/her gender identity.
The school may contact CIF for guidance.

If the school declines to allow the pupil to participate in activities in a manner consistent with his/her gender identity, at the request of the pupil and/or parent the school administrator must contact the CIF office, which will assign a facilitator who will assist the school and pupil in preparation and completion of the CIF Gender Identity eligibility appeal process.


I don't have kids, but I can certainly imagine the horror of a kid who identifies as a girl and dresses like a girl - all the other kids in school think "he's" a girl - being forced to play boy's sports and shower with a bunch of boys. It would be humiliating and impossibly uncomfortable. This law accommodates these rare children.

This law does NOT mean that boys and girls shower together willy-nilly. Or that ANY boy can choose to use the girl's locker room.

If you have a problem with this law, I'm sorry. I do not. If my child identified with the opposite gender, I would be grateful for this law, that allowed my child to continue in school and feel comfortable there.

reply to post by esdad71
 



Originally posted by esdad71
You were 16. would you not like to shower with 16 y/o girls? and the parents cannot say anything because it is protected by law. THAT is the problem. It is BS....


I see you didn't read what the law was about at all. The parents have EVERYTHING to say about it. And, as I said, boys (who identify as boys outside of school) cannot shower with 16-year-old girls. That's ridiculous.



... stop with the Rosa Parks references. It is not the same.


Explain to me how it's not the same. If a couple walks in and is turned away, it's the same as having a sign.

.
edit on 6/15/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


but this stupid idea came to fruition.


Our nation is a "Power of the people" kind of nation. In almost all political situations, the People are to blame for their silent consent.

In any event, what BH wrote is pretty much spot on. My son was gay. He didn't really have to shower with the boys, but he always was uncomfortable with the alpha male oriented sports. In high school he settled into tennis. But was typically anxious about most days in physical ed throughout his prior academic career.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 




"When free men have need for laws, they are no longer fit for freedom." - Pythagoras



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
No guys, again, all you re talking about is someone who is gay or Transgendered, etc. This does nothing for 'everyone else' as far as protection. How about separate showers for ISlamic women who should not share a shower with men? again religion or any other belief goes out the window and it ok for you as long as it is protecting the group you champion for.

I did read the bill completely and it is the one section that I felt out of place. All kids should be protected no matter who they are or their sexuality. When you do this, it sends a message that they are different but you can fit in. It is not showing equality it is causing division but as long as the politician can get his votes he pushes it through .



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
No guys, again, all you re talking about is someone who is gay or Transgendered, etc. This does nothing for 'everyone else' as far as protection. How about separate showers for ISlamic women who should not share a shower with men? again religion or any other belief goes out the window and it ok for you as long as it is protecting the group you champion for.

I did read the bill completely and it is the one section that I felt out of place. All kids should be protected no matter who they are or their sexuality. When you do this, it sends a message that they are different but you can fit in. It is not showing equality it is causing division but as long as the politician can get his votes he pushes it through .



How is it divisive to observe the differences of others? Divisive is throwing them all in together, with the childish prejudices, and letting the "dog eat dog" mentality that pervades our public schools work itself out.

To be honest, public schools should go away entirely. But all that aside, if we are to have them, then why should we not approach educating our children in the same way we approach medical care? Individualized educational plans. There is no "one size fits all". When the world had only a few million people, you certainly did benefit more from having generalized approaches. But with what we have today, with the highly developed infrastructure supporting our culture....why not?

I know I would want it for my son. I was normal in every way growing up, and I hated shower time. I was a team captain, all state player....and did everything I could to avoid having to humiliate myself by bathing in front of my peers. If you want my real opinion, THAT should go the way of the dinosaur right now.

Youths have a hard enough time with their bodies growing up. Gay people are that much worse off. Why do we continue to treat them like herd animals, running them through the mill?



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
No guys, again, all you re talking about is someone who is gay or Transgendered, etc. This does nothing for 'everyone else' as far as protection.


You're imagining a boy showering openly with girls and that's not what this is about. The privacy of all students is considered.



I did read the bill completely and it is the one section that I felt out of place.


If you bing California Assembly Bill 1266
Then pick the "leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/​billNavClient.xhtml?​bill_​id=." entry, you'll see where you can read the analyses of the bill. Click "04/17/13- Assembly Education" and it talks about your concern.



"subjective discomfort in the presence of transgender individuals does not create a protected privacy interest" and point out that "claims of discomfort in the presence of a minority group propped up decades of racial segregation in housing, education, and access to public facilities like restrooms and drinking fountains."
...
The court wrote that it could not allow the stifling of plaintiff's selfhood merely because it causes some members of the community discomfort and concluded that the school could not place restrictions on transgender students that were not placed on other female students. Lastly, the Amici argues that "a non-discriminatory policy permitting transgender students to use facilities that correspond to their consistently expressed gender identity would have little or no effect on the privacy interests of other students because schools can easily provide reasonable accommodations to balance the privacy interests of all students."


edit on 6/15/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join