Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by esdad71
Not one respone to the link I posted on the gays who do not believe in marriage either. Not one. So that shows the close minded attitude of many of you.

Actually, it shows that people aren't interested in red herrings.

If you want to discuss your link, please start a thread about "Gays that don't believe in marriage" and u2u me the link. We can discuss it there if you like.

Just like atheists, gays are individuals of independent thought -- connected by only one thing.

Neither are a GROUP THINK.

reply to post by esdad71

Originally posted by esdad71
We shall see what happens when this goes to court and then to the Federal level.

I doubt it will go to court. Unfortunately there will probably be a settlement that we'll not know the terms of, but I hope I'm wrong and it plays out in court. There needs to be precedent set for this so people will see that they cannot get away with discrimination in this country.

I stand by the fact though this was not discrimination against gays but against a persons right to not believe in same sex marriage.

The facts you stand by are in complete disagreement with the facts I stand by. It just took me 41 pages to realize that you're living with your very own set of unique facts that defy logic. I cannot relate to or understand your facts. So stand by them.

i have a better understanding and confirmation on where the nation stands. That is, a small group or even one person can be a voice for an entire group even if some in that group do not agree.

Um, yes. For example, a small group (Republican Congressmen) or even one person (John Boehner) can be a voice for an entire group even if some in that group (Rob Portman) do not agree.

That happens ALL the time. Because no matter what "group" we may be a member of, we are individuals. And we all have our own minds and thoughts. People do not think with one mind or speak with one voice.

Not one respone to the link I posted on the gays who do not believe in marriage either. Not one.

My answer is above. Groups do NOT speak. Individuals speak. I do not speak for any group or on behalf of any group. I speak for ME. The people in your story speaks for themselves, not for "gay people". It's clear you think of people based on what group they're in. I do not. I don't frankly care what "gay people" want (as if they all want the same thing).

I hope that's clear.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Not one. So that shows the close minded attitude of many of you. I tried to engage and you simply would not look at the other side of the coin as I did for you stating he should have made the cake.

Peace..

edit on 18-6-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

It's partly because the content of your article has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination what so ever. In fact, the other side of the coin should be ten times more offensive to you than someone being sued over a cake. It's painting out marriage as a vehicle of the patriachal institution and heteronormative.

Many of the persons referred to in the article would likely abolish marriage. It kind of solves your wedding cake issue I guess:

But while favourable rulings will spark celebrations among pro-marriage supporters across the US, some gay men and women will instead see it as a victory for a patriarchal institution that bears no historical relevance to them. Some lesbians are opposed to marriage on feminist grounds, says Claudia Card, a professor of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, because they see it as an institution that serves the interests of men more than women. It is also, in her view "heteronormative", embodying the view that heterosexuality is the preferred and normal sexuality. "It's undeniable that marriage has historically also discriminated against same-sex couples," Card says. As a result, she thinks the issue of marriage is a distraction. Continue reading the main story Arguments against gay marriage, used by some gay people Rights are more important than a name It's a heteronormative institution that has historically marginalised homosexuality Marriage is "between man and woman" and that's the best environment for children It's a patriarchal, flawed institution In countries that have civil partnerships, some gay people say that's enough "Gay activists should instead put their energies into environmental issues like climate change, because there's a chance to make a morally more defensible and more urgent difference." Others in the "No" camp oppose marriage more broadly because, they say, it denies benefits to people who are unmarried, or because they say it simply doesn't work. Legba Carrefour, who describes himself as "radical queer", calls it a "destructive way of life" that produces broken families.

Source

I used to be against gay marriage, and I used to ask why gay persons needed to 'celebrate' and all those questions that sound really smart but it just shows a failure to understand the main issues.

esdad I think the conversation is going around in circles. The simple fact of the matter is if you want to go your direction then it has to work both ways. If you want to be able to say, 'my Victoria Sponge has suddenly become gay and I refuse to let my Victoria Sponge become a homosexual!' then I need to be able to say, 'sorry, I don't support heteronormative institutions it's against my beliefs as a feminist, and I won't sell you bed sheets as a wedding present. I don't want my bedsheets becoming Christian'. If your 'okay' with that, then your position is actually just being against all discrimination laws.

Fact is, if the studio I work for edits wedding videos then we edit all wedding videos. If you sell Victoria Sponge cakes, you sell Victoria Sponge cakes. You don't fill out a 401 application to legally purchase a Victoria Sponge, it doesn't come with license, it doesn't have a character and background check.

As an aside to this, some Christians support gay marriage even if they don't agree with it. Go figure.

Either way, I don't think anything new has been added to the conversation for the last few pages and it's not like minds are suddenly going to change on this one.

reply to post by Pinke


What about the gay people who are opposed to gay marriage, as I linked to in the thread previously. Do they not have a say?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Pinke

 

What about the gay people who are opposed to gay marriage, as I linked to in the thread previously. Do they not have a say?

AGAIN! Gays are connected by ONE thing. A birth orientation of attraction to same sex.

They are not a GROUP THINK. Beyond the obvious connection, they are individuals of independent thought.

How do some individuals feel about marriage ? Individuals claims independent gay thought as well.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Pinke

 

What about the gay people who are opposed to gay marriage, as I linked to in the thread previously. Do they not have a say?

AGAIN! Gays are connected by ONE thing. A birth orientation of attraction to same sex.

They are not a GROUP THINK. Beyond the obvious connection, they are individuals of independent thought.

How do some individuals feel about marriage ? Individuals claims independent gay thought as well.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Pinke

 

What about the gay people who are opposed to gay marriage, as I linked to in the thread previously. Do they not have a say?

I think for the answer to your question you need to look at the straight community. You will find a remarkable number of unwed couples who do not want to enter the commitment of marriage there too. We call it de-facto relationships.

However there is one crucial difference. In the straight community, you have a choice. If you want to marry you can, if you don't well no-one is forcing you to. In the gay community we have no such choice, we are forced into de-facto status and have no choice to go any further.

So, yes there are those among us who do not want to marry, good on them and may they find peace in the life they choose.

To say that we do not deserve the right to marry because some of us do not want to take that right up is like saying marriage is only for those who want to have kids - you are automatically excluding infertile and old couples from the right.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Pinke

 

What about the gay people who are opposed to gay marriage, as I linked to in the thread previously. Do they not have a say?

There are plenty of heterosexuals who are against heterosexual marriage. They hate the idea of that little piece of paper to "legitimize" their relationship. Lots of heterosexuals refuse to get married. Does that mean that all the heterosexuals who DO want to get married shouldn't be allowed to because of those who don't agree with it?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Pinke

 

What about the gay people who are opposed to gay marriage, as I linked to in the thread previously. Do they not have a say?

Jesus. That is the most desperate grab for a last breath hope I have ever seen.

Yes. They have a say They have a say in how they execute their own decisions related to their own life. This is what is called "liberty".

reply to post by esdad71

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Pinke

 

What about the gay people who are opposed to gay marriage, as I linked to in the thread previously. Do they not have a say?

Even They do not get to deny equal rights to other citizens.

I was just trying to show a larger picture of discrimination. I guess in the eyes of many of you I am wrong as well as the law.

My whole point in this entire thread was that I wanted to see just how people, all of you, look at rights, liberties, etc. I really wanted to see if any of you could at least see the other side of the many coins as to how the rights of one person or group of people, by law, could affect another individual or group. Fairness and equality across the board.

The US has state laws that are different, which is why some people will marry younger in some states where it is illegal in others as well as go to other states to 'legally', defined by the laws of that state, get married. In this case, I have admitted that what the baker did was not right, and by definition of the law illegal, but the reason for his 'doubt' or not wanting to make the cake is based on the BIll of Rights which allows freedom of religion. . It is very hard in this day and age to find something that is not far left of far right because the ones in the middle are generally to busy to care, but, the loud voices are the ones you will hear or see in the MSM. If we look at history, since the early 1900's, laws upon laws are passed to pacify the hot topic at the moment and the government uses that to take away specific rights that are granted in the Bill of Rights/Constitution that then set precedence making it easier to continue to pass more laws. Those laws can then be interpreted by the people discussing it at the time. Not what is right, wrong or what the original idea was, but perception.

This is not about dog weddings, Rosa Parks or just the impact of the special interest group. At it's core, it is about the right to believe or follow something and it not affecting your life or livelihood. There are laws that protect someone at the workplace who follows a religion but there is nothing to protect the business owner. Do we not see this as a little backward. We have had examples about Jews, MUslims and such and it can apply. The ACLU will say people are hiding behind religion. Is it hiding, or simply following a set of rules that are part of their lives. In religion, there are always those who are more acceptable or tolerant as in all groups. Not everyone is evil.

For me, it comes in the form of hypocrisy from the ACLU. They will defend both side of an argument, but hsitorically, even though they are stated as bi-partisan, it rarely is. It's statement of commitment is as follows

Link

"to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States

They are stating here that they will defend anyone's right, but then they go on to say...

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

So, you have the right to follow a religion but not to practice your beliefs? This is not just in the workplace. This means in schools, in public places. Should a state law supercede what is defined in the works that founded our country. That was my question and maybe it does not belong on this thread since my idea or view is far more reaching.

Again, the baker is a schmuck for not making the cake. The two guys simply wanted a cake and it should have been done. I really hope I did not offend anyone because it was not my intention. Thank you for the time you put into the thead and many of you made great points. Peace and Love to all!

D

reply to post by esdad71

Originally posted by esdad71
So, you have the right to follow a religion but not to practice your beliefs?

Discrimination is NOT a practice of his belief. In fact, it's just the opposite:

What does the Bible Say About Discrimination?

Galatians 3:28 ESV

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

James 2:2-4 ESV

My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Acts 10:34 ESV

So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality

What he's doing is judging what he thinks is a sin. There are warnings in his religion about that...

If we are going to talk Christianity, let's talk my favourite part of it; the beatitudes

The eight Beatitudes in Matthew 5:3–12 during the Sermon on the Mount each begins with: [2][3]
Blessed are...
...the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:3)
...those who mourn: for they will be comforted. (5:4)
...the meek: for they will inherit the earth. (5:5)
...those who hunger and thirst for righteousness: for they will be filled. (5:6)
...the merciful: for they will be shown mercy. (5:7)
...the pure in heart: for they will see God. (5:8)
...the peacemakers: for they will be called children of God. (5:9)
...those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:10)

This is how Jesus told us to live. Not to judge one another and pick on those in society who are worse off than ourselves. The people who display the traits above are people who are truly at peace with themselves and can see that even if homosexuality goes against the bible we are still humans and deserve love, compassion and the same secular (i.e non religious) rights as everyone else.

So I guess we can say the Old Testament was full of Republicans and the New Testament was filled with Democrats...

My point was about rights. Religion, sex and race. There are special laws and rulings for some that do not apply to all, again, depending on the one who judges.

Take SCJ Sotomayor, who ruled against 'white firefighters' when she ruled that a test for advancement was unfair for blacks which was then overturned by the Supreme Court she now sits on. Laws created and enforced in one state or municipality do not fit in another and can cause issues. That was my point.

I was really thinking about what could happen with the ruling when and if it goes to court. It is not open and shut. If it is a conservative judge you could see a different ruling than a liberal one. I was pointing out potential flaws.

reply to post by Nucleardiver


My way of thinking is simple. Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they choose. If they can stay in business that way, WHO CARES?!?!? Privately owned businesses , run by the owners, should have the right to affirm their beliefs in their place of business. If people don't approve, they can choose to take their business elsewhere. Let the market decide, not the courts.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
My way of thinking is simple.

Not going to argue with that.

But you realize that this country has been through all that, right? The separate water fountains and rest rooms for black people... the discrimination against the handicapped, etc.

If they can stay in business that way, WHO CARES?!?!?

Maybe the people who got turned away because they were handicapped care?
The men who couldn't get a meal in their favorite restaurant simply because they were a man?
The black couple who couldn't get a wedding dress in the ONLY wedding dress shop in town?
The woman who couldn't buy parts for her car or diapers for her baby because those stores don't serve women...

Left to our own devices, we are a nation of bigots, fearful and hateful of people who are "different"... That's not ideal, that's the way it IS.

If people don't approve, they can choose to take their business elsewhere.

You live in a city where there are many options, right? You know there are small towns all over this country that only have one hotel, one restaurant, one or two grocery stores, right? Am I supposed to drive to the next town, 30 miles away to get a gallon of milk, when there's a perfectly fine grocery store on the corner, except that they don't serve Mexicans???

I think people with your opinion on this are indeed thinking in a very simple way. You haven't thought it out. There are reasons for the civil rights acts in this country. Good reasons.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by Nucleardiver

 

My way of thinking is simple. Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they choose. If they can stay in business that way, WHO CARES?!?!? Privately owned businesses , run by the owners, should have the right to affirm their beliefs in their place of business. If people don't approve, they can choose to take their business elsewhere. Let the market decide, not the courts.

Luckily there were men that decided to support the women that wanted equality for them under the law, or I'd probably be having a talk with your father or husband about your need to keep your opinion to yourself.

And I ask you B. Heretic... is this a Capitalist America? If you do not want to do Business with this person ....so be it! Don't do it!

reply to post by Foreshadow

Originally posted by Foreshadow
And I ask you B. Heretic... is this a Capitalist America?

Yes. But businesses have laws that they must follow, just as private citizens do. This baker violated the law.

If you do not want to do Business with this person ....so be it! Don't do it!

I won't.

Those little cast figures on top of wedding cakes have a bride and groom.....Two guys or two girls is not easy to come by....How are they going to make that cake. I think that defense would hold up in court

All the bakery has to say is they were afraid of not getting paid or that they were booked up. These kind of lawsuits are just raising prices all over the country. Everyone will raise their prices so they can cover any future lawsuits for any personal opinions they hold.