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.
beezzer
To anyone here. . . .
Since this case sets a precedent, should catholic hospitals be forced to conduct abortions?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
dragonridr
You shouldnt make someone have to violate there religous beliefs no matter how crazy you think they are.
So now we feel we have the right to tell people their beliefs mean nothing?
dragonridr
reply to post by Pinke
You obviously never been to NEW YORK have you?
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.
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 !
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?
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.
Just because there gay doesnt mean they have the right to force their beliefs on other either.
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.
i dont have the right to yell fire in a public building. Ever ask your self why?
they dont have the right to make this man approve of the actions they are taking.
Im thinking you're to far over the line to know where the line should have been drawn.
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.
Communities don't bond by kicking each other out of cabs and refusing to do business with one another.
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.
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.
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?
I'd give you the same speech if gay people refused to sell products to Christians.
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.
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.
Source
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.
BlueMoonJoe
I'm guessing the answer has something to do with the insidiousness of political correctness. Before you scoff...
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
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
Live and let live and honoring diversity. What wonderful ideas.
Imagine instead if it went something like this:
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.
macman
reply to post by TheRegal
It has created special class of people.
The Gay couple's rights now trump the rights of others.
TheRegal
Anyone's rights in their own protected grounds trumps the rights of businesses that are open to the general public to freely discriminate.
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.