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: 37
18
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by SourGrapes
 



Originally posted by SourGrapes
Why are we discussing sexual preference AT ALL in an elementary school?


Because it's a fact of life. Kids have gay parents. They see gay people in movies, on TV and in life. They know what marriage and family is. They learn about men and women falling in love and getting married. Sometimes it's men and men and sometimes it's women and women.

Also, some kids know their sexuality at a very young age and to teach them that they are OK and not some sort of demented freak isn't a bad thing.



I absolutely HATE that I have had to explain what gay and lesbian means, before I've even had the 'sex' talk with my children.


If you've ever taught them anything about a man and a woman falling in love, getting married and having a family, you're teaching them about heterosexuality. Sex doesn't have to be involved. Part of the problem is that people think being gay is all about sex, when it's just the same as heterosexuality - people falling in love with other people... Unless you go into details about how mommy and daddy intimately express their love, there's no need to bring sex into it at all.


Kids have gay parents and straight parents but you are making it as if gay kids are different, not me, They are not. They do not need special rights or privilege.

Why use the word demented freak? Who would say that? Not me. Kids need to know from an early age that they are all the same and not different. Once you tell a child that they are gay, and other kids are not, they will feel like an outsider. This is why i made the comment that if you do not have children you cannot possibly understand or tell me how I should feel as a parent. You do not know what it is like to see your own child cry, or know fear or know happiness. All children are different but they should all be treated the same...as innocents.

I made that post to show why I am so emotional and continue on this thread. It is personal to me. I do not want my child at 7, to know what gay is. There is NO need. He should be learning about science and planets and math. When a child wants to know, they will ask. It is their nature. To teach them something is only to implant early on that there are differences in people. If you say it is ok for a mommy and a mommy to be together they will want to know why? To go down that road with a kid in elementary school when you want to wait till they are older to discuss sex is wrong.

Telling a child where babies come from is not teaching heterosexuality. That is just messed up and comes from the mind of someone who thinks there is a difference between hetero and homo sexuality. Is it hitting home yet that you may be a little more bigoted than you think?




posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


BIgoted ideas...about Islam or homosexuality...or both? You are wrong on all accounts BTW.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Kids have gay parents and straight parents but you are making it as if gay kids are different, not me, They are not. They do not need special rights or privilege.

Why use the word demented freak? Who would say that? Not me. Kids need to know from an early age that they are all the same and not different. Once you tell a child that they are gay, and other kids are not, they will feel like an outsider. This is why i made the comment that if you do not have children you cannot possibly understand or tell me how I should feel as a parent. You do not know what it is like to see your own child cry, or know fear or know happiness. All children are different but they should all be treated the same...as innocents.



I agree with you here, teaching kids to label things and people from an early age is wrong. This is teaching them to be prejudiced, no matter how good the intention is.



I made that post to show why I am so emotional and continue on this thread. It is personal to me. I do not want my child at 7, to know what gay is. There is NO need. He should be learning about science and planets and math. When a child wants to know, they will ask. It is their nature. To teach them something is only to implant early on that there are differences in people. If you say it is ok for a mommy and a mommy to be together they will want to know why? To go down that road with a kid in elementary school when you want to wait till they are older to discuss sex is wrong.


I don't know enough about what goes on at every school to know if this is being taught to 7 year olds, but IMHO it is too young to be teaching about sex and sexuality. However Kids being kids, it is entirely possible that one kid in the class may have heard or seen the word gay used and then use it themselves against another kid as an insult. At this point the teacher needs to react. If the kids ask what the word means, the teacher will need to have an truth but age appropriate answer for everyone. I have a 7 year old nephew. He knows he has two uncles, he adores us both. He knows that we are called gay. Does he know anything about the sexual side of it? If he does it was certainly not taught to him by us. He just thinks that we are 2 special friends and that is all he needs to know until he is older.



Telling a child where babies come from is not teaching heterosexuality. That is just messed up and comes from the mind of someone who thinks there is a difference between hetero and homo sexuality. Is it hitting home yet that you may be a little more bigoted than you think?


Apart from the emotive ending to that statement, once again I agree. Every gay person knows the ins and outs of heterosexual sex and reproduction. We may not practise it, but we know it. Every kid, straight or gay is going to be curious at some point to know where babies come from. There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching the way that it has happened since the beginning of humanity itself. The important thing with the teaching about this is to make sure that kids are not taught anything anti-gay. i.e. a man must love a woman and have babies with her, anything else is unnatural, instead say when a man loves a woman they may have babies i.e leave it open so if the kid a later date becomes aware that they might be different they can come and question it without feeling like they are abnormal.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Did I say it was you?



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 


I'm not talking about labeling kids as anything or forcing them to understand sexuality. I don't know where people get that idea... I'm talking about having a discussion. Reading a book, such as one of the Todd Parr books, like The Family Book along with some of the other books kids read in first and second grade.



So, I can help students create a sense of belonging. Also, the book introduces that stepparents and homosexual parents are considered to be part of a family as well. This book also indicates that family is always there for each other, and will continue to support each other through their lives.


esdad, I'm frustrated because I haven't said ANYTHING about teaching kids about sex or labeling kids gay. I don't like words put in my mouth.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


My apologies if you thought I was attacking what you were saying - I was responding to the response to your post.

Books like the one you have mentioned are exactly what I mean by age appropriate responses. At the age of 7 kids are not sexually aware - they are more curious as to what each other's family is like. I can remember well playing the 'my dad knows more than your dad' game back then. (I always used to lose because our dad was one for telling us tall stories....
)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I didn't think you were attacking me. I was agreeing with you and explaining my position further.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


When you have a discussion with children it is not one-sided. Like I mentioned, my son thought he was called a 'fat kid" not a faggot becuase of the urban accent. ( he is very thin and athletic by the way) so he did not understand why he was called fat. I was glad I did not have to explain it to him because you do not have to at that age. Kids will then ask questions and then bring it up to other kids. They should be learning about school and not sexuality at that age. The should not even have to worry about who a step dad or step mom is as long as they are loved.

There were gay kids when I went to school and no one picked on them. It was just understood. No special anything. You know what, they all turned out fine.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


When you have a discussion with children it is not one-sided. Like I mentioned, my son thought he was called a 'fat kid" not a faggot becuase of the urban accent. ( he is very thin and athletic by the way) so he did not understand why he was called fat. I was glad I did not have to explain it to him because you do not have to at that age. Kids will then ask questions and then bring it up to other kids. They should be learning about school and not sexuality at that age. The should not even have to worry about who a step dad or step mom is as long as they are loved.

There were gay kids when I went to school and no one picked on them. It was just understood. No special anything. You know what, they all turned out fine.



What your scenario proves is that some kids already use the word. Luckily for you, you dodged the bullet of having to explain the word faggot because your son misheard the term.

My parents used to simply avoid a direct answer on things like that i.e.

Q "Mum, what does faggot mean?"

a) "Where did you hear that word? Please don't use it because it is a very mean name to call a person"

Q) "Okay, sorry Mum. But why is it a mean name?"

a)"Well it's a name that means something not very nice. You're a bit young to understand now, but one day when you are older I'll explain it to you"

At which point we would run off and play (well more like fight) with our brothers and sisters and in 10 minutes time we had forgotten all about our question.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 


Sorry to use the word but it is because is ignorant parents. To me, it also leads to the argument that sexuality is to prevelant and introduced too early in society today. Look at what kids wear..



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by markosity1973
 


Sorry to use the word but it is because is ignorant parents. To me, it also leads to the argument that sexuality is to prevelant and introduced too early in society today. Look at what kids wear..


No need for apologies, what you have presented is real world stuff. I may not have kids of my own being gay, but I have nieces and nephews ranging in age from 7 through to 19. I hear them calling each other gay to insult one another and I have heard them use the word faggot.

I just laugh at them, because as soon as they realise that I or my partner heard them using the word they get all apologetic over it. It's just something that kids do - we can teach them to not use it as a derogatory term, but they will just find another word to taunt one another with. It's one of the not so nice aspects of being a kid - you will tease someone else and call them names, I'm pretty sure it's been happening since the beginning of humanity and spoken language.

As for the overt sexualisation of children, this is something that I too am deeply concerned about. These kids beauty pageants and promoting very adult cuts of clothing for children are making kids grow up too fast. One only gets to be a kid once and childhood should be a wondrous time of friendship and discovery, not wasted on worrying how pretty they are or trying to look like an adult hooker. My own childhood was spent building huts out of wood (that usually fell down pretty quickly), riding my bike down the farm and falling off and skinning my knees, playing with the dog along with all the multitude of other things kids love to do. I never once concerned myself with trying to look like an adult or do what they do. The kids of today's generation are missing out on so much of these amazing experiences and it makes me really sad actually.

This is where the very real danger of pedophilia creeps in too - make kids all adult looking and sexual and well I wouldn't really need to finish that sentence if there were a pedophile in the room.
edit on 16-6-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Hiya Charles,

Didn't really want to respond in some ways because I feel anything I say won't make any difference to you or anyone else in the thread, but I give it a try.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Pinke
 

Dear Pinke,

I'm sorry I created that impression in you mind. I know it's hard to believe, but I wasn't attacking anybody.

In this thread you also posted this:

Originally posted by charles1952
The other huge point made by gay marriage advocates was "My gay marriage won't affect you." Well, we see that it does. Were the advocates unaware of this? Or, did they know and then lie about it?

A Christian reading out a prayer inappropriately at a public speaking event is being brave, but a gay black basketball player admitting their sexuality is a publicity stunt. (It's a publicity stunt that could get you shot, but all the same). If the basketball player was backed by an invisible entity would it make it any more platable?

And your quote above essentially gives me the options of being a liar or ignorant. (Although I believe the actual argument is 'its not your business or choice so stop caring')


they couldn't have won over hearts and minds, which is the real prize. How could they do that now? I don't know. Here's a goofy idea to spur some thought on the subject.

This is just the thing, they can't win your heart or your mind because you should be able to tell them how - so far you can't. You can't say you're not 'attacking' someone when you're frankly telling them their wrong no matter how well its dressed up.

Just read the nonsense in this thread ... that the gay couple were part of a large group victimizing the baker, that they rubbed their hands together with glee at the money they could make, that its not discrimination because they knew the baker was an evil Christian and its about revenge on religion. Then suddenly it's not about that, it's about a war against leftism and letting children in too early on the birds and bees. There comes a point where people are grabbing at any debate point to avoid touching the main issue ...

Does belief in a God (or in general) excuse you from discrimination laws?

It's unfortunate you didn't answer my question before ask if you would give the benefit of the doubt to the couple if they 'forgave' the baker.

If it was a Christian couple, I'd have said I wouldn't have to give them anything. The baker would be crafted from the same material as Sesame Street characters; muppets. If I want to purchase a cake and slam my face into it whilst chanting to Luminious the Lightbulb God, so be it. Just because a certain group has invisible super friends (Gods) behind it, they shouldn't get any more rights than the rest of us.

You do seem to dress your opinions up a lot, Charles. You have to understand at a certain point to have an opinion you have to offend or attack someone. Your opinion that this isn't discirmination, and that gay people should be silent and walk unseen and unheard into the night because all homosexuality is is a sexual act not worthy of being recognized in public (aggressive paraphrasing I know) - yes this opinion offends me. You may hold it in my sincere best interests of avoidance of hell or aid to my health, but I don't agree with you.

I totally defend the right for you have this opinion. You can believe in whatever God you want. If your right to this freedom is eroded I'll fight for you. But I don't believe the idea of hiding in a bedroom, never being discussed in schools, being equated to an attraction to animals, and having to apologetically ask if people support gay marriage before purchasing a cake is teneable.

I'll be flatly honest, I vomit in my mouth a little bit everytime someone says I love gay people, I have gay friends, but if we let them get married society itself will fall in a heap, men will sleep with dogs, cats will be able to have a mortgage, and Satanists will be able to purchase embryos to sacrifice to their dark Gods and then .... and only then ... will Communism return!!!.

I honestly can't believe that homosexuals are the single barrier to beagle / human relations, and that the production of a victoria white sponge cake has taken us a step closer to the end of humanity.

Everyone on this topic should check their bias, on both sides. Both sides jump to conclusions.

That said, I believe strongly there are a number of defensible positions on this topic, but I don't believe religious people having their tender beliefs protected to the point they can refuse to serve gay people is one of them. (Though I respect liberatrians who want complete free will, even if I think it would be a disaster for Americans).



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I missed how this got turned into teaching kids about sexuality, so apologies if i am way off base,

the word 'Gay' has turned into a word children and adults use as a substitute for 'Horrid' or 'Bad', kids hear other children talk, their older siblings talk, walking through the street a child could pick up a word, a derogatory remark, a curse word, etc

as someone who does not have kids, i would never tell anyone how to raise a child, but, as a parent personally i believe it would be my responsibility to talk to my children about 'words', and what gay and straight is, not making it seem different, but that we are all human even if we differ in sexuality, race, gender etc

kids mature at different rates, i believe you should have children be children as long as they can, no need to rush the aging process, but to teach them tolerance at any age for me personally is appropriate,

we don't have to sexualize everything



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 



Originally posted by Pinke
I feel anything I say won't make any difference to you or anyone else in the thread...


Don't even THINK that. This is one of the best posts in the thread, IMO.



There comes a point where people are grabbing at any debate point to avoid touching the main issue ...

Does belief in a God (or in general) excuse you from discrimination laws?


You're so right. People grab at any issue - and bring in "What about the children?!?!?!" as a last resort - because that is the emotional hook that will hopefully shut gay people and their allies up once and for all. It's like there's a desperate hope that all claims to equal rights will be tossed aside if we can show that treating our fellow Americans with love and equal respect will somehow hurt the children. It's the most twisted logic!



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Quite so, many people would rather evade the question in fear of the answer, that is why when the conversations of Gay adoption, and gay Marriage come up it either goes back to Children or the Bible, deflecting an inwards view of discrimination, or a complete crumble of their belief system,

the end of the day it was discrimination, no 'religious rights' were taken away, no 'freedoms' taken away

we can all concur that no laws should have to be placed to have others treat each other with respect and humility, regardless of personal belief, sadly that is not the way many of the populace act, and as such more laws are put in place to make sure discrimination doesn't happen



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Quite so, many people would rather evade the question in fear of the answer, that is why when the conversations of Gay adoption, and gay Marriage come up it either goes back to Children or the Bible, deflecting an inwards view of discrimination, or a complete crumble of their belief system,

the end of the day it was discrimination, no 'religious rights' were taken away, no 'freedoms' taken away

we can all concur that no laws should have to be placed to have others treat each other with respect and humility, regardless of personal belief, sadly that is not the way many of the populace act, and as such more laws are put in place to make sure discrimination doesn't happen


There is nothing wrong with gay marriage. Gay couples should be able to experience the joy and the pains of legal marriage. I also agree with gay adoption. I do not have a problem with it and I am Catholic. The priest at my church may have something different to say but I can see the good in it. The argument you will get from many is that gay couples might produce gay or confused children. I do not buy into that because just as there are racist parents there are gay parents that will push an agenda and hopefully the child will be able to overcome it. People of any race, sex or religion can be idiots...look at the Westboro Baptists. A child needs parents that love them not induct them.

However, if someone does want to follow a religion, it is their choice. It they do, they are protected by the freedom of religion and no law should be passed to directly or indirectly affect that right. If so, the law to protect one group of people is discriminatory against another. Then who is right?

At the end of the day, there were really no rights taken away from either the couple or the baker. The couple can still go somewhere and purchase what they wanted. The baker is still allowed to practice his religion although he may face a fine.

Both parties got what they wanted in the end.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
However, if someone does want to follow a religion, it is their choice. It they do, they are protected by the freedom of religion and no law should be passed to directly or indirectly affect that right.


Please answer THREE questions. Don't avoid them or ignore them or twist my words or change the subject, please. Just answer my questions, PLEASE:

QUESTION>>>>> How does selling a cake to a gay couple affect the bakers right to follow his religion?

Before you answer that, remember that the baker sells cakes to gay people even though he doesn't approve of homosexuality (on religious grounds) and has said so himself. So, even though he disapproves of homosexuality, he sells them other cakes.



At the end of the day, there were really no rights taken away from either the couple or the baker.


You are incorrect. According to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, the couple has the RIGHT to pubic accommodation, without discrimination.



Discrimination based on the following factors is illegal in the areas of: PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION: Race, color, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation (incl. transgender status), marital status, and retaliation for engaging in protected activity (opposing a discriminatory practice or participating in a public accommodations discrimination proceeding)




The couple can still go somewhere and purchase what they wanted.


QUESTION>>>>>>> And if this was the only wedding cake baker in town? Should they go to the next town? The next state?

If businesses are permitted to discriminate based on their beliefs, there will be businesses refusing to serve black people, women, religious people and people with disabilities.

QUESTION>>>>>>> Would you feel the same if the baker took the same stance against a black couple?



The baker is still allowed to practice his religion although he may face a fine.


The baker is still allowed to practice his religion whether he makes a wedding cake for these guys or not. There is nothing in his religion that forbids him from making a cake for a customer that he disapproves of.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
How does selling a cake to a gay couple affect the bakers right to follow his religion?
It is not about a gay couple, and I have answered this. He has nothing against gay people, he does not acknowledge the sacrament of same-sex marriage. The same one the FEDERAL government does not acknowledge.

And if this was the only wedding cake baker in town? Should they go to the next town? The next state? They had a choice of over 100 bakeries and live 10 minutes outside of Denver, one of the most liberal cities this side of San Francisco. If this baker had had 6 previous complaints than it is known in the gay community. At least the gay friends I have are VERY close knit. I would have to assume the same here.

Would you feel the same if the baker took the same stance against a black couple? But he didn't. If he did not make a birthday cake for a black person I would have a problem. For two black same sex wedding cakes, I would have to say he might be an idiot but he should have the right.


edit on 17-6-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



Originally posted by esdad71
How does selling a cake to a gay couple affect the bakers right to follow his religion?
It is not about a gay couple, and I have answered this. He has nothing against gay people, he does not acknowledge the sacrament of same-sex marriage.


And, as I thought, you didn't answer my question. And no, you have not answered it previously either. How does selling this cake to this couple affect the bakers religious rights, as you have claimed?



And if this was the only wedding cake baker in town? Should they go to the next town? The next state? They had a choice of over 100 bakeries and live 10 minutes outside of Denver, one of the most liberal cities this side of San Francisco.


And again, you refuse to answer the question. What I'm getting at here is that you have the opinion that any baker or business person should be allowed by law to deny services to patrons based on their personal beliefs. But there's not always going to be 100 similar services in town. WHAT IF they lived in a small town, as I do, and there was only one place to choose from? Would you still support the baker's right to discriminate?



Would you feel the same if the baker took the same stance against a black couple? But he didn't.


You clearly don't understand the concept of "WHAT IF"... In the 50s, people used their religious beliefs (and Jim Crow Laws) to deny services to black people. If he had a religious belief that black people shouldn't be allowed to marry, would you support his choice to discriminate against them?



If he did not make a birthday cake for a black person I would have a problem.


And if he denied them a wedding cake? If his religious beliefs are that God disapproves of black people marrying, should he have the freedom to deny service to them?



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

How does selling a cake to a gay couple affect the bakers right to follow his religion?
It is not about a gay couple, and I have answered this. He has nothing against gay people, he does not acknowledge the sacrament of same-sex marriage. The same one the FEDERAL government does not acknowledge.


and as you claim the couple should have known he would reject them, the baker should know the laws owning a business, he can't discriminate, and he did based on his prohibited belief of Gay Marriage, that was his only reason for rejecting the couple, not because he was busy, not because he didn't have any supplies, he rejected them based on Gay Marriage, once he based it on a select 'thing' it becomes discrimination,

no one is saying he has something against gay people, he has baked cakes for them before, he is prohibited from believing in Gay Marriage, he denied them a cake because they were celebrating gay marriage, that is discriminatory



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join