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.

 

Colorado's Masterpiece Cakeshop Must Serve Gay Couples Despite Owner's Religious Beliefs, Judge Ru

page: 12
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

beezzer
To anyone here. . . .

Since this case sets a precedent, should catholic hospitals be forced to conduct abortions?

The example is wrong. Muslims being forced to produce bacon products is not a good example either.

This is a cake store, being asked to provide a standard cake. They are refusing this cake based on disapproving of life style choices. A like for like example would be a vegan restaurant refusing service to Jews, an abortion clinic refusing to abort Christian babies, or a Chemist refusing a pregnancy test based on your choice to cheat on your spouse. It's refusing a service that's already in place, not introducing a new service!

There is nothing about this event that implies that you could force a tennis club to provide shuttlecocks and golf clubs, or make a church conduct Satanist rituals. To say otherwise is, sorry to be harsh, fear mongering nonsense.


beezzer
If someone can legally FORCE someone to go against their religious beliefs, then where does it stop?

Once religious freedoms take a backseat, then anyone and everyone becomes fair game.

Ironically, religious people are the only ones that can register religious businesses which have special rights to discriminate on religious grounds. The cake business was not registered as religious. If a business is religious and wants to have special rights (emphasized for purpose) then they have to be registered as such.

Where has religious freedoms taken a back seat? In my country, they have special protections. In your country they have special protections. How many special protections do I have? None!




posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Pinke

beezzer
To anyone here. . . .

Since this case sets a precedent, should catholic hospitals be forced to conduct abortions?

The example is wrong. Muslims being forced to produce bacon products is not a good example either.

This is a cake store, being asked to provide a standard cake. They are refusing this cake based on disapproving of life style choices. A like for like example would be a vegan restaurant refusing service to Jews, an abortion clinic refusing to abort Christian babies, or a Chemist refusing a pregnancy test based on your choice to cheat on your spouse. It's refusing a service that's already in place, not introducing a new service!

There is nothing about this event that implies that you could force a tennis club to provide shuttlecocks and golf clubs, or make a church conduct Satanist rituals. To say otherwise is, sorry to be harsh, fear mongering nonsense.


beezzer
If someone can legally FORCE someone to go against their religious beliefs, then where does it stop?

Once religious freedoms take a backseat, then anyone and everyone becomes fair game.

Ironically, religious people are the only ones that can register religious businesses which have special rights to discriminate on religious grounds. The cake business was not registered as religious. If a business is religious and wants to have special rights (emphasized for purpose) then they have to be registered as such.

Where has religious freedoms taken a back seat? In my country, they have special protections. In your country they have special protections. How many special protections do I have? None!


What are you talking about hes not a religious business hes a religious man.And one should have to choose between making a living and practicing their faith. This is why if you go to New York and you have alcohol with you and a muslim cab driver pulls up they will and do refuse service. In fact try bringing back alcohol on a plane flight the cab waiting out front of the airport will tell you they will not transport anyone who has alcohol. Why because muslims believe that its a sin! You shouldnt make someone have to violate there religous beliefs no matter how crazy you think they are. Look i think its really silly for a muslim to worry if i have a bottle of wine i brought back from say france and this is going to condemn them to hell. Like i said no matter how stupid thats what they believe.

So now we feel we have the right to tell people their beliefs mean nothing? What a sad world we live in when one person thinks well thats just stupid for them to feel that way and decide to take away their choice. Of course i will look forward to having a muslim cabbie drive me to the liquor store. Of course we all know that will never happen because somehow thats ok.
edit on 12/14/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   

buster2010
The owner was stupid to bring his religious beliefs into the situation. You don't have the right to discriminate against someone just because it's against a persons religious beliefs. He says it's against his 1st amendment right he is wrong. A business doesn't have first amendment rights because it isn't a person. These rights were made for the people of the nation not the companies they run.


When his business can make the cake instead of him making it, maybe you will have a point.

He is in a state where gay marriage is not the law. He feels gay marriage is against his religion. He feels participating in the act is akin to condoning it against his religious beliefs. Unless he's the only effin' baker in town, it's hard to make a case that this couple is being discriminated against.

This has wrong written all over it.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 02:22 AM
link   

dragonridr
What are you talking about hes not a religious business hes a religious man.And one should have to choose between making a living and practicing their faith.

I imagine you mean shouldn't have to choose but ...

People have to make moral and ethical decisions about their conduct every day religious or not. Religious people have just assumed a position of importance on the basis of their beliefs coming from an allegedly different source. In reality, their beliefs are no different in value from mine or a schizophrenics.


This is why if you go to New York and you have alcohol with you and a muslim cab driver pulls up they will and do refuse service.

Anyone with the expectation that they won't deal with people they don't approve of, or alcohol whilst driving a taxi is having a serious argument with reality.

In multiple places drivers have been fired for this, have been penalized by being taken off the job queue, and they absolutely should be. In one American state they were offered an extra light on their cab. When the cab had two light on the roof it would mean no alcohol or dogs. They refused this on the basis that people would then discriminate against Muslim drivers. Funny that.


dragonridr
You shouldnt make someone have to violate there religous beliefs no matter how crazy you think they are.

That's the most worrying thing from your post.

The marketplace formed via ancient agreements to sell things to each other at fair prices with minimal questioning. When one group begins discriminating by not selling goods to another it causes a reaction. If one group are allowed to do it, then another must, and so on. Before you know it (and contrary to idealistic ideas of what anarchy looks like where people just go to other stores) you have conflict and open faced racism which dissolves into segregation.

Why do you think in many countries around the world we have rainbow flags in chemists? It's because gay suburbs formed when some chemists wouldn't help gay people because it was against their 'religious beliefs.' Against my religious beliefs subtitles into I'm judging your actions.


So now we feel we have the right to tell people their beliefs mean nothing?

People's beliefs mean something but they're mostly equal.

The issue is that people are so privileged now they've forgotten why we made these agreements in the first place, and they think their personal judgements of others trump the good of the community. Tolerance isn't acceptance.

If a non-religious person couldn't put up with taking money from someone's hand, putting it in a till, and handing over a generic pre-made cake are you saying this would be perfectly acceptable?

If you are, then you're likely just an anarchist and it's an overall political issue you have.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


You obviously never been to NEW YORK have you? Do you know how they solved the problem of Muslims refusing to carry alcohol in their cabs? Simple if you have alcohol and a muslim driver pulls over he must have another cab dispatched for you. If he is in line at the airport and refuses service he must go to the back of the line. So looks like they made accommodations for them doesnt it? You have a very narrow view of the world a persons beliefs can be the center of their existence. No one should have to chose between the religion they choose to practice and being able to feed their family. Is it ok for you if a muslim has to take a break to pray? Or do you think he should be made to continue to work because you believe religion is garbage?

People like you are scary just because you have nothing you deem important in your life does not mean others do not. Im not even the slightest bit religious last time i was in a church was over 10 yrs ago for a wedding.But im not so close minded that i cant understand how someone who is feels. Ill say it again its ok to take away peoples rights as long as it doesnt affect you this is a very big problem with society as a whole. But when you wake up one day and remember fondly the freedoms you gave up for security or political correctness, Just remember one thing you were warned ! This is why i look at everything from an individual standpoint i want people to have as many freedoms as possible. I dont believe the rights of the many out weighs the rights of the few. Sorry im ranting its just you so have that i havnt lived life yet attitude so whats the big deal right?



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 04:03 AM
link   

dragonridr
reply to post by Pinke
 

You obviously never been to NEW YORK have you?

Sigh. Yes I have. Condescending to me isn't selling your point at all.


So looks like they made accommodations for them doesnt it?

Not in Minnesota or several other states. So it looks like you've never been interstate have you? (See what I did there? It's annoying right?)


You have a very narrow view of the world a persons beliefs can be the center of their existence.

I've traveled a lot of places. Had very few problems. I'm aware of people whose beliefs are the center of their existence. Funnily enough, they're the center of most people's existences. If you know this, then you also need to learn to live and let live around other people and be part of a larger diverse community.

Communities don't bond by kicking each other out of cabs and refusing to do business with one another.


No one should have to chose between the religion they choose to practice and being able to feed their family.

And no one should have to choose to follow a religion or hide their beliefs just to feed their family or get transport home from the airport. It goes both ways. It's why the best attitude is just to get along with each other.


Is it ok for you if a muslim has to take a break to pray? Or do you think he should be made to continue to work because you believe religion is garbage?

It's none of my business what people do with their break times. They can pray or do whatever. I work with a lot of people of different faiths, and it never really comes up. They just take their breaks at different times. Same with religious holidays.


People like you are scary just because you have nothing you deem important in your life does not mean others do not.

Condescending nonsense.


its ok to take away peoples rights as long as it doesnt affect you this is a very big problem with society as a whole.

Not what I've been trying to say, and if you interpreted it that way there is a misunderstanding.


But when you wake up one day and remember fondly the freedoms you gave up for security or political correctness, Just remember one thing you were warned !

It's nothing to do with political correctness. Throw that buzz word around all you like. I work with people who don't approve of gay marriage, who think drinking is immoral, sex is for procreation, and believe Atheism is odd. I've worked with and for people with many opinions I don't agree with ...

I've been given Qu'rans and bibles by colleagues that just assumed I should be religious because I've been helpful to them. Wasn't offended one iota. I've had people tell me feminism is stupid, and that discrimination doesn't exist. I've had people telling about the great big Muslim invasion, and also how white Europeans are racist. I've also had some awesomely nice learning experiences talking about people's beliefs and come to new understandings.

Everything I've just described is a result of freedom of expression and ideas and letting other people be who they are. Some of these experiences I had early in my life because I wasn't allowed to avoid people of other races and creeds.

I don't think you realize it, but this idea of people being allowed to discriminate as they please leads to the opposite of all the experiences I've listed above - good and bad. It also just encourages racism and segregation in general. Live and let live looks like a really good compromise when people realize that businesses will react with unofficial racist policies and segregation will start soon after.


I dont believe the rights of the many out weighs the rights of the few. Sorry im ranting its just you so have that i havnt lived life yet attitude so whats the big deal right?

I think you're not actually engaging with me and just dismissing me based on a stereotype.

I've lived in multiple countries, have many different types of friends, and have a wide array of experiences. You have to ask yourself the question why I feel this way rather than assuming you know the reason. Some of my best conversations have been with the mutli-demographic of taxi drivers including Muslim ones. I find their points of view and experiences fascinating.

Is one of the reasons I love getting taxis because I get to meet so many people. And I'm not saying this as a pre-ramble to justify discriminatory feelings, I'm saying it on the grounds that I think people forget how many experiences were lost to segregation between races, genders, and creeds in the past.

In fact, if you travel enough you can see plenty of this happening in Europe. It just becomes communities within communities and tension all around. Is that what we really want for our future?



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


So in your world its ok to force someone to do something they believe to be wrong? no matter what excuses you make it still comes down to forcing someone against their will to do something. Just instead of using whips you're using the law. This gay couple has no more or less rights then the baker. Just because there gay doesnt mean they have the right to force their beliefs on other either. As far as your argument bottom line your choosing oppression of one group over another. And thats not your decision or mine is it? If a religion disagrees with the actions of another group so what id recommend that not join that religion. However religion is not an area any government should be demanding changes to as a human being the right to believe what we want is the most important right we have. And the minute we try to tell religions they are wrong and tell a person what they believe is wrong as a society we crossed the line.

As far as your other argument well so NEW YORK does this but other places dont wow. See there again its the well it doesnt affect me defense. You should be deeply concerned any time anyones rights are violated not just gays. You cant put the rights of an individual over another and suspect society to function. I have the right to say whatever i want but i dont have the right to yell fire in a public building. Ever ask your self why? Simple because the people in that building have a right to be safe and me yelling fire when none exists can cause them to be hurt.I have the right to own a gun this does not give me the right to kill someone taking away their right to live. This gay couple has the right to get married however they dont have the right to make this man approve of the actions they are taking. Governments job is to respect the rights of both individuals and not choose one over another. Im thinking you're to far over the line to know where the line should have been drawn.
edit on 12/15/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   

dragonridr
reply to post by Pinke
 

So in your world its ok to force someone to do something they believe to be wrong? no matter what excuses you make it still comes down to forcing someone against their will to do something.

No one forced the baker to sell generic wedding cakes to the public.


Just because there gay doesnt mean they have the right to force their beliefs on other either.

Do you have to give up your beliefs to sell a product to someone?


As far as your other argument well so NEW YORK does this but other places dont wow. See there again its the well it doesnt affect me defense. You should be deeply concerned any time anyones rights are violated not just gays.

Oh I think it's wrong but offended is the incorrect term to apply to it. You seem to be really stuck on this idea of painting me out as a selfish person. That offends me.

I know these things happen, I care, but ... if I was religious I would say something like: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference. I can't stop Christians being discriminated against and killed in the Middle East, I can't sort your taxi driving problem out in New York, and I only have the chance to be the prime minister of one country and it looks unlikely.

My point about other countries and states changing taxi legislation is that just because it happens in New York doesn't mean it's right. Praying I have no problem with. Taxi drivers disapproving of people's shopping? I disapprove of that as much as I disapprove of the government doing it.


i dont have the right to yell fire in a public building. Ever ask your self why?

Positive and negative freedom theory. I've discussed it with people before on ATS. People have a right to be safe, and I also think people have the right to know if they can purchase things from a shop prior to entering.


they dont have the right to make this man approve of the actions they are taking.

I don't believe selling a Victoria Sponge cake is showing endorsement of action or anything else. Is a birthday cake endorsing my birthday? Is an office cake sold to a political office endorsing Republican policy?


Im thinking you're to far over the line to know where the line should have been drawn.

I'm thinking we just have a fundamental disagreement on what it means to own a business in a public market place and why it's important to keep the market place a public space for everyone.

I'd give you the same speech if gay people refused to sell products to Christians.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 


This is wrong on so many levels.

I honestly can't believe people would agree that the Govt should be allowed to step in and tell a business they have to bake a cake for someone.

This is maddening.

I guess the rights of a now, special class of citizens, trumps that of others.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Pinke
I'm aware of people whose beliefs are the center of their existence. Funnily enough, they're the center of most people's existences. If you know this, then you also need to learn to live and let live around other people and be part of a larger diverse community.


Live and let live. It makes so much sense, doesn't it? Why some people have such a difficult time grasping it remains a mystery.


Communities don't bond by kicking each other out of cabs and refusing to do business with one another.


Indeed, they do not.


It's nothing to do with political correctness. Throw that buzz word around all you like.


Just to be safe, instead of throwing it around, let's put it aside for a sec.


I work with people who don't approve of gay marriage, who think drinking is immoral, sex is for procreation, and believe Atheism is odd. I've worked with and for people with many opinions I don't agree with ... I've been given Qu'rans and bibles by colleagues that just assumed I should be religious because I've been helpful to them. Wasn't offended one iota.


No, you certainly don't seem to have been negatively affected by such a variety of experience. Viva la difference of diversity, eh?


I've had people tell me feminism is stupid, and that discrimination doesn't exist. I've had people telling about the great big Muslim invasion, and also how white Europeans are racist. I've also had some awesomely nice learning experiences talking about people's beliefs and come to new understandings. Everything I've just described is a result of freedom of expression and ideas and letting other people be who they are.


Viva la freedom of expression and letting others be who they are. Well stated.


I don't think you realize it, but this idea of people being allowed to discriminate as they please leads to the opposite of all the experiences I've listed above - good and bad. It also just encourages racism and segregation in general. Live and let live looks like a really good compromise when people realize that businesses will react with unofficial racist policies and segregation will start soon after.


Live and let live. Again, sounds good.

You sound so grounded and sensible that it's hard to argue with your pov. So I'm wondering how someone like you gets to so passionately defending two dopes who didn't have the common decency of valuing diversity and letting a poor baker live in peace with his beliefs.

I'm guessing the answer has something to do with the insidiousness of political correctness. Before you scoff and go buzzword eye rolling, consider: When you, someone so articulate and intelligent, cannot see the hole in your argument, one that will not let the poor baker live without the fear of going to jail for holding to his religious beliefs, something is amiss.

Mind you, it's that he won't do business with them, for he will sell them anything else they'd like. He just won't make a custom item that he sees as his participation in a rite he does not agree with based upon the dictates of his conscience as grounded in the dictates of his faith.

But instead of living and letting live, the two agenda jockeys made a mountain out of a molehill and put the poor guy through the possibility of going to jail instead of simply honoring his beliefs and finding another baker.

Communities don't bind around such fractious behavior. Instead, the supposed benign goal of embracing diversity shows itself to be one of control and breeds division and strife as both sides harden their stance and dig in just that much more. Over an effin' wedding cake.

Imagine instead if it went something like this:

They: We'd like a wedding cake please.
He: I'm sorry, I am happy to sell you any other goods I have, but I am not comfortable making such a cake.
They: Ah, that is unfortunate, but we understand. Might you know of another baker nearby who would not have such a problem?
He: You might try Acme Bakery. They would probably be able to help you.
They: Thank you.
He: You are welcome. Thank you for understanding and all the best.

Live and let live and honoring diversity. What wonderful ideas.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Pinke

I don't believe selling a Victoria Sponge cake is showing endorsement of action or anything else. Is a birthday cake endorsing my birthday? Is an office cake sold to a political office endorsing Republican policy?


It's not about selling a cake he had in stock. It is about being forced to make a cake he does not stock.


I'd give you the same speech if gay people refused to sell products to Christians.


If a Christian walks into a gay couple's bakery and demands they make him a Leviticus 18:22/20:13 cake and they refuse to do so, should they be brought up on discrimination charges? If not, why not?



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 


If the owner wants go so far as to deny service to someone because of their sinful lifestyle, then they are going to go out of business in no time because everybody who has ever entered that shop is a sinner!

What they should have tried doing was share with them just how much our Lord and Savior loves them, instead of turning them away like that. A sure-fire way to harden somebody's heart even more against the Holy Spirit is to treat them bitterly while claiming it's in the name of the Lord.

I'd say this is a great decision on the judge's part. The reason is, now the shop owner could (and should) pass out literature to every customer, including that particular homosexual couple, telling them about the love of our awesome God. I'll wager he does no such thing, though.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   

jeramie
reply to post by Willtell
 


If the owner wants go so far as to deny service to someone because of their sinful lifestyle, then they are going to go out of business in no time because everybody who has ever entered that shop is a sinner!

What they should have tried doing was share with them just how much our Lord and Savior loves them, instead of turning them away like that. A sure-fire way to harden somebody's heart even more against the Holy Spirit is to treat them bitterly while claiming it's in the name of the Lord.

I'd say this is a great decision on the judge's part. The reason is, now the shop owner could (and should) pass out literature to every customer, including that particular homosexual couple, telling them about the love of our awesome God. I'll wager he does no such thing, though.


After what hes been through i wouldnt someone will just sue him for discriminating against their religious beliefs. Then next thing you know he would have to hand out flyers for islam judaism and buddhists could get expensive. Really A little over the top also he was not condemning them for being sinners. He just thinks marriage as a holy ceremony between a man woman and god. He has the right not to participate in something he doesnt agree with. And being a baker they are an important part of a wedding. So if he chooses not to thats his choice as far as business if his decision affects his business thats his choice well let me take that back used to be his choice. Now we have the law telling him he must participate.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Hiya BlueMoonJoe,

Thanks for being a little more friendly. (Am assuming it's mostly genuine haha)


BlueMoonJoe
It's not about selling a cake he had in stock. It is about being forced to make a cake he does not stock.

Yes, looked into it to double check.

The undisputed evidence is that Phillips categorically refused to prepare a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding before there was any discussion about what that cake would look like. Phillips was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage. After being refused, Complainants immediately left the shop. For all Phillips knew at the time, Complainants might have wanted a nondescript cake that would have been suitable for consumption at any wedding.
Source
If the baker had listened to the request, then perhaps we would be having a different discussion.


BlueMoonJoe
I'm guessing the answer has something to do with the insidiousness of political correctness. Before you scoff...

I eye roll just on the basis that political correctness is a wide two way street here. Allowing Muslim taxi drivers to discriminate against your shopping is just as much 'political correctness' as insisting people in public spaces serve the public.

It should be more framed as a debate about what public service means over anything else.


When you, someone so articulate and intelligent, cannot see the hole in your argument, one that will not let the poor baker live without the fear of going to jail for holding to his religious beliefs

Not sure how intelligent I am! >.<

I can see where you're coming from, but hopefully you can see the other side, too. A jail term appears harsh to me for the record. Another for the record, I wouldn't support persons having such a baker produce anti-religious cakes, or even products with highly political messages. The person wasn't asked to do this, though.

I understand and, believe it or not, sympathize with a person having conscience issues in the course of their work, but I also firmly believe in the public marketplace. There are limits on what a person should be asked to do, but providing the same generic service to everyone isn't one of them for me.

To accept that this incident is fine, I'd have to also accept that the same incident with interracial marriage would be okay, or that Islamic cake makers could refuse service to women not appropriately dressed, or to Muslim women marrying outside of Islam.


But instead of living and letting live, the two agenda jockeys made a mountain out of a molehill and put the poor guy through the possibility of going to jail

I don't think that's any more fair than assuming the baker is a horrible bigoted person with no redeeming features. (Or accusing me of being a naive and silly person for that matter). Several people involved could be out and out jerks, we simply don't know either way.

I'll even admit that some gay persons I know have a persecution complex, but so do a lot of people. Me personally, I'm not the suing type.


Live and let live and honoring diversity. What wonderful ideas.

We agree on this part, but I believe there is honoring diversity and then there is encouraging segregation.

This one sits on a fine line, that much I'll certainly agree, but to have diversity in your country diverse people have to be able to purchase products and services in public places. I'll stand by the judge's implication that if the baker was asked to produce a nondescript cake I can't see why it shouldn't have occurred.

If the baker was asked to make a cake with an offensive slogan I'd very much be on the other side. I could even understand if there was some attempt at a compromise on design, but its not what happened.


Imagine instead if it went something like this:

Both sides have different stories as to how it went that paint the other out poorly unfortunately.

I imagine saying, 'oh we send this type of work to X store' probably works for better or worse. Even saying, 'oh I could do something generic but for really good work go Y' probably works.

All said though, the rights of the few out weighing the needs of the many ... I think some people are blind to this not being about gay persons entirely ... If this type of things expands we may be legally bound to allow people of any religious denomination to discriminate against who or whatever they choose. Not saying that's 100% likely, but that slope goes in both directions.

I prefer having to provide services to some people I don't like over the opposite extreme.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 04:28 AM
link   

macman
reply to post by Willtell
 


This is wrong on so many levels.

I honestly can't believe people would agree that the Govt should be allowed to step in and tell a business they have to bake a cake for someone.

This is maddening.

I guess the rights of a now, special class of citizens, trumps that of others.


Special class citizens?

Please.

That's such plainly juvenile political rhetoric I barely even have the energy left to address it.

If there was a cake shop out there owned by immigrants who refused service to white Christian men, then these same consequences would ensue if taken to trial. The funny part is I'm sure you'd be in here ranting and raving about persecution against white christian men if that were the case.

They're called "protected grounds" and everyone belongs to at least one of them.

I'm not sure if a lot of you are trying to be facetious or if you're actually buying your own nonsense but it's beginning to come off rather childish how consistently this stuff gets moaned about on certain issues when it works both ways almost every time. But I guess as long as people are handing out stars for parrotted political nonsense then people will keep saying it.
edit on 16-12-2013 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 




If this wedding cake maker was a Muslim refusing service to gays, people would be tearing their hair out trying to figure out who to support....




On a side note, if I was a caterer I would serve pork if that was what was required for the contract. But you better believe you would pay extra, because I would need to throw every single pan out the window after the pork was cooked in it, after such atrocity the pan can never be used again...and I would wear gloves, lots and lots of gloves!

Yep, you would pay out the nose dude!
edit on 16-12-2013 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRegal
 


Oh, I love it when assumptions are cast, and the wrong idea is brought forth.

It has created special class of people.
The Gay couple's rights now trump the rights of others.

Regardless if it were turned around, I would support the business owners right to refuse service.

About your whole response was based around your incorrect assumption.

Care to try again?? Now that you have been corrected.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Honestly, if someone refused to make a cake for me based on my sexual preference i would pity that poor soul and get on with my life.

I dont believe that kind of ignorance should be allowed on show, nor do i believe that someone's religious beliefs should be undermined. Its a catch 22 really. I dont really think either side "won" here.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

macman
reply to post by TheRegal
 


It has created special class of people.
The Gay couple's rights now trump the rights of others.



Anyone's rights in their own protected grounds trumps the rights of businesses that are open to the general public to freely discriminate.

The rule doesn't apply specifically and exclusively to gay people. All assumptions aside, your statement was still as asinine as it was sensational political rhetoric.
edit on 16-12-2013 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   

TheRegal

Anyone's rights in their own protected grounds trumps the rights of businesses that are open to the general public to freely discriminate.

So, my rights trump that of someone else's when I enter into their store?
No, not in the least. You and every other Progressive have been bastardizing the Constitution to fit your narrative for a while now.
There are property rights, regardless if it is a business or not.
The business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone, regardless of the situation.


TheRegal
The rule doesn't apply specifically and exclusively to gay people. All assumptions aside, your statement was still as asinine as it was sensational political rhetoric.

Your poetic retorts are very cute, but not based on how the laws were constructed.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join