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: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Beartracker16
 



Originally posted by Beartracker16
Would you risk eating a cake made be someone you just ticked off?


No! That thought occurred to me as well. But it's not about the cake, it's about punishing a business that's breaking the law.




posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by brandiwine14
This couple knew that this bakery would refuse them which is why they went there specifically. They targeted this bakery on purpose. They even said so themselves.


The more I research this the more I tend to agree with you. It was known that the owner does not approve of gay marriage for whatever reason and it is really starting to look as though this couple did in fact specifically target this bakery.

Was their motive to make it well known that this bakery doesn't cater to gays, was it an attempt to effect the business in a negative manner through negative publicity, or was it in an attempt to create a circumstance where they would be able to sue this bakery for discrimination and receive damages for being the plaintiff in a tort suit? My guess is that it was a combination of all three.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



Originally posted by AshleyD
You hit the nail on the head with what I was thinking about. It's only a matter of time churches are sued for not performing gay marriages.


Churches are not businesses. But I have no doubt there will be people who try to sue the church. I hope they lose. But this baker has no legal standing as his right to exercise his religion is not being violated.

Hi, by the way. It's good to see you.



edit on 6/7/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Telos
 


A business is not allowed to discriminate its clients by law. If things were like that, I fully agree with the lawsuit.

Although, unfortunately we live in a world, where people do not always tell the truth or distort it. It is uncommon lieing about something in order to gain profit.

Couple of years ago, I was doing recruitment interviews at the company I worked at. One of the applicants told me he was praying 5 times a day. Just out of curiosity I asked him, what religion he believed in. He was not very strong candidate - weaker credentials and work experience - so we decided not to hire him. Later he sued us for religious discrimination...

When I started searching about such "scam", it came out there are many "serial" applicants like that. They make their CV weaker on purpose (enough to be interviewed) and add their religion, orientation, other points like that on their Facebook profile. During the interview they try to direct the conversation to such topics like they did with me, indirectly. When they are not accepted, which is very likely, the company is sued for religious/sexual discrimination. The lawsuits do not provide much money round here, although enough to live off couple of months. Then the process continues.

That is one of the reasons why I often want to know full details on such topics before stating my opinion. There is simply too much deceit out there, unfortunately.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Hi, by the way. It's good to see you.


Hey You! I usually stay as far as possible from these threads.


And, yeah. I saw your post that it is law in Colorado and sexual orientation was added to the list of protected groups. So I cannot say the suit is outside the law. I'm just wondering if it should be.

Still, though. 'Making it a law' could most definitely spiral into the realm of churches. So far nothing has happened except for one Methodist church being sued by a lesbian couple for not renting their property for a reception. And it looks like Christian churches in England could be sued. No mention of other religious establishments (surprise).

Well, I'm high tailing it out of this thread now. lol



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by esdad71
 
I am not comparing gays with blacks. I am comparing discrimination with discrimination. It is more than just about a cake, like it was more than just about a seat on the bus.
As I mentioned earlier in other responses, there is no end to 'discrimination'. I'm sure the mentally challenged/drug addicts/pedos/sexual addicts etc etc feel discriminated in their own minds. Should we go ahead and agree to their demands and/or belief system?

So you are now comparing gays to people who break laws???


If you think there are laws then why is 'same sex marriage' a LAW and not a natural right ?


What? Same sex marriage isn't a law. No one is forced to marry someone of the same sex by law.
Some states have laws that forbid same sex marriage licenses.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I can't believe the ACLU is stupid enough to take this and actually think they have a case.

As a business owner the bakery can legally refuse service to anyone they choose for any reason. They don't have to justify themselves to anyone.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
This reminds me very much of a South African gay couple who wanted to get married on the wine estate Diemerskraal, and they were refused on the basis that it was a same-sex marriage.

I'd say they simply should have taken their business elsewhere, and they did have options of more gay friendly venues.

But now they want an apology, and have taken the case to the Human Rights Commission.
www.gaystarnews.com...

On the one hand, as one gay person, I don't think its right to impose events on a private business, but I also think our Constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation.
As a white person I also feel it's unfair to have a black journalist or lawyer's association, while white people may have no exclusively white organizations.
So I guess everybody must play by the rules of "non-discrimination" (or "fair" and entrenched anti-white male discrimination).
Seemingly a tax-paying business is not seen as a wholly private institution.
Shortly after apartheid ended some businesses like hairdressers and holiday resorts in more rural towns tried to cling to allowing only white customers (based on the "right of admission reserved" and private property arguments), but the Human Rights Commission soon put an end to that.

Churches may discriminate, and will not be forced to perform same-sex marriages against their will.
However, church employees have sued for unfair dismissals if they were employed and fired for being in a gay relationships (such as a gay organist has done).

A fundamentalist Christian art college was also recently slapped on the wrist over a prospectus that said gay students would not be allowed in classes, unless they were receiving "ex-gay treatment" from the college.
The Human Rights Commission ruled that educational facilities were not wholly private, but public interest enterprises, and that the prospectus had to be scrapped immediately, while the college was given a few months to consult with gay organizations on a more workable plan.

Educational facilities are one argument, where I think there should be no discrimination.
However, I think hosting a gay wedding is different.
I mean they didn't ban all gay people from the premises, they just didn't want a certain event.

I recall that in the "gay village" in Cape town there were also charges against male-only and female-only gay clubs.
Some felt this was also gender discrimination.
Yet, here the law made an exception and decided the specific clubs (as well as some gender-specific accommodation) were allowed, and they could reject members of the opposite sex at the door.
I'm not sure why, but I suppose they cancel each other out in fairness.

Of course it is always hurtful to be rejected simply for being what you are, and it does make one feel second class as a human being.
I just wish they were consistent in that way with Affirmative Action quotas and Black Economic Empowerment.
edit on 7-6-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by esdad71
 
I am not comparing gays with blacks. I am comparing discrimination with discrimination. It is more than just about a cake, like it was more than just about a seat on the bus.
As I mentioned earlier in other responses, there is no end to 'discrimination'. I'm sure the mentally challenged/drug addicts/pedos/sexual addicts etc etc feel discriminated in their own minds. Should we go ahead and agree to their demands and/or belief system?

So you are now comparing gays to people who break laws???
If you think there are laws then why is 'same sex marriage' a LAW and not a natural right ?

What? Same sex marriage isn't a law. No one is forced to marry someone of the same sex by law.
Some states have laws that forbid same sex marriage licenses.
Yes I'm aware of that. Its a push from the LGBT community and thats why we're having this discussion on ATS
My point was that since you consider the drug users/pedophiles etc etc as people that break the law, would you consider child marriage 'breaking the law'? or polygamy breaking the law?
It is legal in many countries around the world. Since we're referring to 'equal rights' here and the basis of what constitutes a 'law'. Dont tell me that we're only referring to the US laws here since we do criticize and/or pressure/force change in laws in certain countries, why not look at laws that are legal in other countries ?

edit on 7-6-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
In quite a few threads debating whether or not gay marriage should be officially recognized by the government, I have pointed out that many are concerned that churches could, if gay marriage becomes a civil right, be sued over refusing to marry gay couples. This would place them in the position of having to choose between violation of the law or violation of their beliefs, a direct contradiction of the right to religious freedom. I was told that this was in no way possible... but here we have someone who wishes to avoid an action which would condone gay marriage, citing religious objections, and he is being sued for following his religious objection. And some are supporting the lawsuit.

So much for that argument.

I appreciate this seems logical to you, but your laws aren't set up this way I believe and this isn't an example of what you're talking about. Some of this is from my own country, but it's similar to Americans ... and I guess I don't really want to read so many American laws when Americans seem to not know them.

Religious businesses are exempt from various laws and are allowed to discriminate. This discrimination in my country includes not hiring women for male roles such as a priest, or even refusing to hire a person who is having sexual relations outside of wedlock and similar.

No matter how many protections are given to everyone in the country, religious business (Churches have this status by default) will still be allowed to discriminate because these exceptions are over and above existing law. They also have a guideline at the bottom to add new instances when religion is 'burdened' by the law. These new instances may be brought up in court, but the law would set up the case already leaning towards the Church.

Read this article, and notice that I as an Atheist have less rights than a religious person.

This is exactly what people are crying foul of; X group wants Y special treatment ... but the extra rights aren't afforded to an Atheist. I have to make your Catholic cake, I have to let Muslims in my swimming pool. Without declaring myself a believer in the supernatural, my beliefs are less valuable than the religious. I can be an anti-gay Atheist all I want, my belief doesn't matter! I have no argument. Does that make sense to you?

By default, no cake shop as far as I know is considered religious by default, and nor should they be. If they are then they have to advertise that fact. I don't like the idea that a service provider can turn around and say, 'sorry, I'm religious' on any given day when it suits them.

I understand as a creative person that if I'm making something that I don't agree with, I won't do my best work. My boss has every right to make me do it within reason. (I've had to make products for Christian purposes before. I didn't enjoy it but I did it.)

Baking a cake doesn't condone gay marriage, nor does a builder at a brothel condone prostitution. My video work hasn't made me a promoter of Christianity. I agree, it's a fine line but we're not talking a holocaust cake or a BDSM torture cake. We're talking 'provide the same service you provide all customers'.

Can you imagine the reaction if they were asked to make a Democrat cake and refused because they're Republicans?

Part of living together means we can't have fiefdoms. That means you have to be able to walk into a Chemist and buy a packet of condoms from the Catholic, then walk into the cake store and say, 'please make my Yahweh holiday cake' from the gay couple, and so forth ...

If you want to allow people to refuse service for any reason then it's a step forward towards anarchy. Regarding it being a predatory law suit, there are actually laws against that too in America (edit:I believe actually, can't find the actual law now I googled haha).

My opinion: if you want religious to have special rights to discriminate based on belief, then you have to give me the rights to discriminate against the religious based on belief.

Some Islam based areas do this very well - ends up being Sharia Law.
edit on 7-6-2013 by Pinke because: Edit

edit on 7-6-2013 by Pinke because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Because the gay couple plainly targeted this particular business, could the owner counter sue for malicious persecution?
I could have said prosecution too.
edit on 7-6-2013 by Beartracker16 because: added thought



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beartracker16
Because the gay couple plainly targeted this particular business, could the owner counter sue for malicious persecution?
I could have said prosecution too.
edit on 7-6-2013 by Beartracker16 because: added thought
Not a bad idea
I hope he has a chance to do just that.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
The sad thing is there are many people who continue to discriminate based on Sexuality, Gender, Race etc,
we can argue that they had the right to refuse service to anyone, i am not privy to the laws in Colorado,

one thing i do know is if a Gay owner refused service to a straight person based on his sexuality people would be up in arms about the 'Gay Agenda' we are allegedly pushing on everyone



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beartracker16
Because the gay couple plainly targeted this particular business, could the owner counter sue for malicious persecution?
I could have said prosecution too.
edit on 7-6-2013 by Beartracker16 because: added thought


Not if this business is found to have broken the law by discriminating against someone due to their sexual orientation.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by macman
 



Originally posted by macman
Yep, nothing like taking away rights of some, to give to someone else.


What rights does the baker have taken away?


Their right to refuse creative property they own (cake design) which forces them to act in a manner they feel is against their religion.

It is not like they had 100 cakes to choose from, a gay couple walked in, wanted one and they said "no, you are gay". If that is how it went then they have a case, refusing their goods for public consumption based on sexual orientation (i.e. cake in the window).

But this involves the creation of something. It would be more akin to someone going into a tatoo parlor and asking the artist to tatoo a Nazi symbol on there arm and a jewish tatoo artist refusing the creative property request for religious reasons.

The gay couple wanted this artist to create something their mind was uncomfortable creating, it is their private business and their creative property to sell according to their rights.

God Bless,
edit on 7-6-2013 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
My understanding and feelings toward cases like this is a privately owned business can refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason.

Here is an example, a bartender I know refused service to a known thief. The accused thief freaked out demanded a to talk to the owner, call the cops, ect.. The owner took the side of his bartender and told the man to leave. The accused thief now has a trespassing warning and will be arrested if he steps in that bar again.

If the bakery refused to make a cake in the shape of a naked women could someone sue them(and win)? I sure hope not.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

There are laws against discrimination. People who discriminate need to be stopped.

I find it hypocritical that the bakery owner most likely has not interviewed all his customers to make sure that they follow all his religious beliefs before he sells them anything.


It is not about refusing to sell them a cake, if the gay couple wanted a cake in the window it would have been sold to them, it is about refusing to allow their creative property to be forced into something they deem sin.

It is MAKING the cake (creative property) that they are against, not selling cakes they have already created for public consumption to anyone that wants that product, it is their right as to what they create.

This isn't a hardware store where they buy a good and resell it at profit. They CREATE the good (creative property) and no one has the right to control the creative property of a private business.

God Bless,



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by hp1229
My point was that since you consider the drug users/pedophiles etc etc as people that break the law, would you consider child marriage 'breaking the law'? or polygamy breaking the law?
It is legal in many countries around the world. Since we're referring to 'equal rights' here and the basis of what constitutes a 'law'. Dont tell me that we're only referring to the US laws here since we do criticize and/or pressure/force change in laws in certain countries, why not look at laws that are legal in other countries ?

edit on 7-6-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)


Yes, child marriage is currently breaking the law. Yes, polygamy is currently breaking the law. Initiating a same sex marriage in a state that bans it is also breaking the law. Your point? Why are we looking at what other countries do? I live in America, so I am concerned with American laws. Americans don't follow other countries' laws. Banning child marriage prevents victimization of children. I'm good with that. I have no personal problem with polygamy, as long as children aren't being forced to marry. I'm not sure what all this has to do with the baker, though, except that apparently there is a law in Colorado that bans discrimination by a public establishment based on sexual orientation.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Same thing happened in oregon a few months ago, and it really comes down to semantics, and idiot shop owners.

Had they just said "we're booked up", there could be no lawsuit. They make it a point to say "you're gay,therefore we wont serve you", which turns it into discrimination.

honestly, I suspect this is a marketing scheme by this shop. They knew it would grab headlines.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElohimJD

Originally posted by kaylaluv

There are laws against discrimination. People who discriminate need to be stopped.

I find it hypocritical that the bakery owner most likely has not interviewed all his customers to make sure that they follow all his religious beliefs before he sells them anything.


It is not about refusing to sell them a cake, if the gay couple wanted a cake in the window it would have been sold to them, it is about refusing to allow their creative property to be forced into something they deem sin.

It is MAKING the cake (creative property) that they are against, not selling cakes they have already created for public consumption to anyone that wants that product, it is their right as to what they create.

This isn't a hardware store where they buy a good and resell it at profit. They CREATE the good (creative property) and no one has the right to control the creative property of a private business.

God Bless,


They create and make ALL their cakes. You typically don't make a lot of wedding cakes ahead of time to sell to walk-ins. They are much more complicated and require a special order. I believe the anti-discrimination law in Colorado applies to all restaurants, where food and entrees are "created' as well. So, no, I don't think there's a case for the baker here.




top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join