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: 44
18
<< 41  42  43    45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 



In Colorado, a MAN can go into a public restroom for WOMEN. If you can't see a problem there, I can't help you


The horror. Funny thing, although it is a stupid law, haven't heard or read about this being an issue ie not something that happens as you seem to think. I have however used a women's bathroom in a bar (tiny one seater) when the guys was taken for 30 minutes by some "kids" doing something that sounded like snorting something...the bartender said it was fine. Felt strange even though it was just a toilet and sink.

CJ


The way the law is written, a sex offender could legally hang out in a women's room, preying on those coming in to use it.


No, they can't legally hang out and prey on people. What in the world?

CJ




posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Would it be acceptable for the West baptists or whatever they call themselves to target gay businesses, say a bakery, to get god hates fags cakes, then sue if refused? How is it different?
edit on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:02:30 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
Would it be acceptable for the West baptists or whatever they call themselves to target gay businesses, say a bakery, to get god hates fags cakes, then sue if refused? How is it different?
edit on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:02:30 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


Yes. It would be acceptable. The litigation and precedence it would set would further solidify what is and isn't protected speech. This is what lawsuits like these do, they continue to strengthen existing law by building legal precedence for how these laws are interpreted.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


yes, they would have the freedom to do so,

though if i may add, this couple wanted a cake to celebrate their wedding, not get a 'God hates straights' cake



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I hope the west baptists don't read this forum and get any ideas lol. I used it because religion is a protected freedom as well, even ones people consider crappy.
I guess if you don't want to be involved in a gay marriage with your business, you better make up some other reason for it that isn't a protected reason, instead of tell the truth. Probably what racists do to get around it. Vote with your wallets. I know I do.
edit on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 23:33:43 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
I hope the west baptists don't read this forum and get any ideas lol. I used it because religion is a protected freedom as well, even ones people consider crappy.
I guess if you don't want to be involved in a gay marriage with your business, you better make up some other reason for it that isn't a protected reason, instead of tell the truth. Probably what racists do to get around it. Vote with your wallets. I know I do.
edit on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 23:33:43 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


So you are advocating and suggesting that people lie in order to discriminate against people possessing an innate property are born with, in violation of the law. That is despicable. Would you be in favor of discriminating against people born with Down's Syndrome or with different color skin also because you don't like it?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 



Originally posted by TKDRL
Would it be acceptable for the West baptists or whatever they call themselves to target gay businesses, say a bakery, to get god hates fags cakes, then sue if refused? How is it different?


I'd like to take a stab at this.


In your scenario, the gay baker wouldn't be refusing because the customer was a Christian. In other words, he wouldn't be discriminating BASED ON RELIGION. He would be refusing because he doesn't decorate cakes with hateful decorations. He wouldn't put that message on a cake for ANYONE. And that's the important distinction. So, it would not be illegal discrimination.

Could WBC (Westboro Baptist Church) sue? Sure. But they would probably lose. Because the baker wouldn't decorate that cake for anyone.

Here's a scenario with the shoe in the other foot:

A WBC member walks into the gay baker's shop and says, "I'm a member of Westboro Baptist Church and I want a cake for an anti-gay revival we're having".

He wants a large cake that the gay baker offers to other customers for parties. No elaborate decorations or messages on the cake. Just a pretty party cake to be used for their religious event.

The gay baker refuses to make the cake and states that he is doing so because he doesn't support the WBC member's religion.

Under that scenario, the baker is CLEARLY refusing service based on the WBC member's religion and that would be illegal discrimination.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
The way the law is written, a sex offender could legally hang out in a women's room, preying on those coming in to use it.


No, they can't legally hang out and prey on people. What in the world?

CJ


Are you claiming they cannot enter a women's restroom? Are there to be monitors, telling people how long they can stay inside?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
The way the law is written, a sex offender could legally hang out in a women's room, preying on those coming in to use it.


No, they can't legally hang out and prey on people. What in the world?

CJ


Are you claiming they cannot enter a women's restroom? Are there to be monitors, telling people how long they can stay inside?


What are you even talking about right now? What does this have to do with anything?



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


You said this:



The way the law is written, a sex offender could legally hang out in a women's room, preying on those coming in to use it.


The truth is, if a sex offender wanted to dress as a woman and go into a woman's restroom to prey on women, he could do that no matter what the law is. BUT NOT LEGALLY. A sex offender cannot legally prey on women. And allowing transgendered persons to use the restroom that represents their outward gender, doesn't make sexual assault legal. Your statement is ridiculous.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


You said this:



The way the law is written, a sex offender could legally hang out in a women's room, preying on those coming in to use it.


The truth is, if a sex offender wanted to dress as a woman and go into a woman's restroom to prey on women, he could do that no matter what the law is. BUT NOT LEGALLY. A sex offender cannot legally prey on women. And allowing transgendered persons to use the restroom that represents their outward gender, doesn't make sexual assault legal. Your statement is ridiculous.


How many cakes can a sex offender buy from a homophobic baker in a women's bathroom?

I think that's the real question here.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


You said this:



The way the law is written, a sex offender could legally hang out in a women's room, preying on those coming in to use it.


The truth is, if a sex offender wanted to dress as a woman and go into a woman's restroom to prey on women, he could do that no matter what the law is. BUT NOT LEGALLY. A sex offender cannot legally prey on women. And allowing transgendered persons to use the restroom that represents their outward gender, doesn't make sexual assault legal. Your statement is ridiculous.


How many cakes can a sex offender buy from a homophobic baker in a women's bathroom?

I think that's the real question here.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Nucleardiver
 



Originally posted by Nucleardiver
You are partially correct in that if it is a government agency or an employer discriminating based on creed, color, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation it is in fact illegal.


You're wrong. It IS the law in Colorado, that any place of business engaged in offering sales or services of any kind to the public, cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. See this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
While I don't agree with it personally as I believe all businesses should have the right to discriminate (it is their property after all), but if it's the law then this couple is in the right for suing the bakery.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Great job on that one, makes sense totally.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
Would it be acceptable for the West baptists or whatever they call themselves to target gay businesses, say a bakery, to get god hates fags cakes, then sue if refused? How is it different?
edit on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:02:30 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


You don't seem to comprehend the whole discrimination issue and the fact that it is wrong. What you are describing of that the buyers of the hypothetical 'hate-cake' are engaging in hateful, discriminating behavior by trying to buy a cake that bears a hateful, discriminating thing on it. Yet you compare this to a couple trying to buy a normal wedding cake in the process of trying to get married. Are you able to see that difference?

I once read that the quality of compassion is one of the most developed and complex emotions and that small children, for example do not possess it. They don't have the ability to 'see things through the eyes of another person'. Apparently some people are never able to develop this ability.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


It is not a normal wedding cake in the eyes of the religious person who is against gay marriage. It is a gay wedding cake. It make not make sense, but a whole lot of beliefs are irrational.

On one side, I can see being angry or hurt about being discriminated against, on the other hand, I could see how it might feel that people find his beliefs invalid to the point of suing instead of going to the bakery down the road, ya know? I just feel this kind of thing will do nothing but solidify people's bigotry, "Hey look, see they are shoving their beliefs down our throats, and belittling our beliefs." That is one of the things you hear them say all the time, that they are having their beliefs belittled, and having it shoved in their faces.
edit on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:00:53 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by TheFlash
 


It is not a normal wedding cake in the eyes of the religious person who is against gay marriage. It is a gay wedding cake. It make not make sense, but a whole lot of beliefs are irrational.

On one side, I can see being angry or hurt about being discriminated against, on the other hand, I could see how it might feel that people find his beliefs invalid to the point of suing instead of going to the bakery down the road, ya know? I just feel this kind of thing will do nothing but solidify people's bigotry, "Hey look, see they are shoving their beliefs down our throats, and belittling our beliefs." That is one of the things you hear them say all the time, that they are having their beliefs belittled, and having it shoved in their faces.
edit on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:00:53 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


This isn't any different than two men going to a restaurant and the manager telling them to leave because, "We don't serve your kind". Do you support this kind of discrimination? Should this type of thing be allowed in our society?



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


No, I don't really feel that would be the same thing. A wedding cake is specifically dealing with a wedding, going to a resteraunt has nothing to do with a wedding. I personally don't support any discrimination, I am just saying I can also see things from their point of view is all. Suing him is not going to change his, nor anyone else's bigotted beliefs, it will likely only solidify them and make them feel even more justified to have them.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 



Originally posted by TKDRL
It is not a normal wedding cake in the eyes of the religious person who is against gay marriage. It is a gay wedding cake.


Yes, they insist the cake has a sexual preference.
Irrational, indeed! And if a Stormfront baker refused to sell a cake to a black person because, in their eyes, it's a "black wedding cake", it would be just as irrational. And just as illegal.

People can have their beliefs, irrational as they are, but they cannot break the law because of them.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


No, I don't really feel that would be the same thing. A wedding cake is specifically dealing with a wedding, going to a resteraunt has nothing to do with a wedding. I personally don't support any discrimination, I am just saying I can also see things from their point of view is all. Suing him is not going to change his, nor anyone else's bigotted beliefs, it will likely only solidify them and make them feel even more justified to have them.


Actually, the cake isn't for a wedding.. it is for a party AFTER a wedding, so how would this be different than going to a restaurant after getting married? How long does a gay couple have to wait after getting married before it is no longer acceptable to discriminate?




top topics



 
18
<< 41  42  43    45 >>

log in

join