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: 17
22
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Which is why a whole lot of people out there don't bother with the whole licensing scheme anymore. Piss on begging a government for permission to do business with others. Piss on asking a government for permission to travel. When you get on your knees and beg the government for permission to do things like travel and make a living, then the government always makes improper demands to grant you the permission.

It's going assbackwards to the olden days when you had to beg the king to hunt game on "his land". Screw that. I do not need a government's permission to practice my trade, anymore than I need a government's permission to shoot vermin trying to kill my livestock. It limits my business a bit, can't do insurance jobs, but it's a small price to pay really. I will not be forced to conduct business with anyone I don't wish to conduct business with, for any reason. If I could find a way to avoid doing business altogether with any government entity, I would do so in a heartbeat.




posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Until people learn tolerance there are many that need such protection.

What if stores started saying we wont sell to you if you have Guns? or if you are Religious? or by your Race, or gender. would you want your kids to get discriminated because of some reason?

you would rather divide the people than show that we need at the least acceptance and tolerance?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Darth_Prime
reply to post by macman
 


Until people learn tolerance there are many that need such protection.

What if stores started saying we wont sell to you if you have Guns? or if you are Religious? or by your Race, or gender. would you want your kids to get discriminated because of some reason?

you would rather divide the people than show that we need at the least acceptance and tolerance?


People as individuals dont have to show acceptance or tolerance. They can be as big a jerk as they want. You know you cant do away with prejudice or hate or intolerance we've been trying and its not going any where. Now trying to force someone to change their views just violates their rights you're putting the government in a position to pick winners and losers. That was never its intent or should it be even with civil rights laws in the 60s they were smart they said anywhere the public has access cannot be denied based on gender or race religion was specifically excluded. Its ok to draw a line just dont draw it so far that it violates someone elses rights. Here let me give you an example i actually got kicked out of a cab in NY because the driver had to pray! i was running late already pissed then dropped off and had to get another taxi.
His religion superseded the service he was providing yes i called the cab company yes i was pissed but i didnt sue him either. There excuse was the driver lost track of the time by the way and needed to take a break.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Correct, you cannot force people and i would not suggest that because i would not want to be forced the same.

you can show tolerance without being "forced" against your beliefs, and intolerance is being taught as acceptable far more than tolerance. as the generations continuing they are being taught to divide, group and remain intolerant because it's against "X"



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Willtell
www.huffingtonpost.com...




DENVER (AP) — A Colorado judge says a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs. Friday's order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer says Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver will face fines if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes for their wedding celebrations. An attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop did not immediately return a call seeking comment. Shop owner Jack Phillips had argued that making cakes for gay wedding ceremonies violates his Christian beliefs. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission last year on behalf of Charlie Craig and David Mullins. The couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado.


Is this a good idea? is this a good decision?
I believe in equal rights but also what about the right of the religious believer who is averse to transgender rights through their perceived religious obligations.
In this case the simple act of creating a wedding cake with figures of two men rather than a man and a woman on the cake prevents a bakery owner from making the cake due to his perceived religious duties.

Would forcing the baker to go against his perceived religious obligation be the government intervening in private citizens religious rights?

Or should the government, in the case a judge, exercise its judicial power and legally force this man to oblige the gay couple?

Obviously the judge has the right to do this but the question is should that power be curtailed by legislation?
Allowing religious beliefs to discriminate

What if a black Muslim doesn’t want to hire or do something for white people?
Or a Klansmen or Christian Identity (who are racist Christians) doesn’t want to serve minorities should their religious beliefs be tolerated?

The point is where do we draw the line in respecting religious beliefs versus the rights of individuals

It may be a question for Solomonic wisdom that I am sure is prevalent here at ATS


edit on 7-12-2013 by Willtell because: added content



There is no way that straight man is going to bake that gay man a cake unless sex is involved. And apparently Mr. Cake Maker cannot make you a cake if he knows what is going on in the bedroom....So to control it: He is just not going to make you a cake. And as I type now money is being poured into his corner while the gay are wealthy as well. But oh #, that damn Conservative Supreme Court.

Sorry folks, I am calling this one. No cake will be made unless he is some poor cake maker. Why? Gorge Carlin told me so:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


We are created equal in the eyes of Govt.
There is no law stating that I personally must treat you as an equal.

Being treated equally does not in turn then mean I must interact with you, or provide you a service.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


So, you are for social engineering then. Because after all, laws must be put in place because the people can't govern themselves correctly.
That sounds very Soros'ish.

If a company/business did not want to do business with me for any reason, I would take my green money elsewhere.
Why on earth would I choose to force someone into doing something, and expect them to provide me with the best service then?

When I am strong armed into doing something, it usually comes with a lack of effort and my very best is not done.
Most people are the same. Especially when forced to do something.

I go back again, spit....meet hamburger.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



macman
We are created equal in the eyes of Govt.
There is no law stating that I personally must treat you as an equal.


We are created equal (it doesn't say anything about "in the eyes of the government" ... Now you're paraphrasing for the founders. And the Constitution guarantees equal treatment of all citizens under the LAW. There IS law that states you must treat your customers equally. If you don't like it, get the law changed or move out of Colorado to do your business, or, like TDRKL prefers, go rogue and do business without a license.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I spoke to the owners daughter a week ago. She said her father isn't baking any wedding for now. They're appealing the judgment.
If A&E can refuse to do business with Phil Robertson, then why can't bakers and photographers have the same allowance?
I'm not sure how to embed articles but there are two articles I hope to add soon. I support the owner of this shop in his decision not to partake in supporting a celebration of this kind of union. People should have the say in where to shop, and who to support and not support via their money.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   

dronedodger
I spoke to the owners daughter a week ago. She said her father isn't baking any wedding for now. They're appealing the judgment.
If A&E can refuse to do business with Phil Robertson, then why can't bakers and photographers have the same allowance?
I'm not sure how to embed articles but there are two articles I hope to add soon. I support the owner of this shop in his decision not to partake in supporting a celebration of this kind of union. People should have the say in where to shop, and who to support and not support via their money.


Phil Robertson was not acting as a customer of A&E, he was an employee. Is the baker okay with partaking in supporting a celebration of someone who was an adulterer? How about a couple of heterosexual swingers? Does the baker have a questionnaire for each of his customers to fill out, asking what sins they have committed so he can decide which ones to bake for? If that is the case, then he needs to close his public accommodation store, and reopen it as a private, members-only bakery club. Then he can turn away whomever he wants.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Marriage, the celebration of two becoming as one seems to be the issue for him, the owner, not all sin and sinners.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


The L.A. Times editors voiced their opinion on this but I cant seem to add the article. Its from December 12, 2013. They favor the discretion of bakers and photographers. This coming from the 6th most gay-friendly city in America. Imo, most people prefer choice and common sense over ideology of sexual orientation and force.
Adding edit:
The daughter also said her father doesn't bake or decorate any thing celebrating Halloween.
Hes protecting his actions, not forbidding others from doing what they chose.
edit on 22Sun, 22 Dec 2013 08:36:46 -0600201312America/Chicago222013228America/Chicago by dronedodger because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   

dronedodger
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Marriage, the celebration of two becoming as one seems to be the issue for him, the owner, not all sin and sinners.


That sounds an awful lot like discrimination to me. Marriage is okay if it is between adulterers or swingers, or physical abusers, but not between two gay people who really love each other?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   

kaylaluv

dronedodger
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Marriage, the celebration of two becoming as one seems to be the issue for him, the owner, not all sin and sinners.


That sounds an awful lot like discrimination to me. Marriage is okay if it is between adulterers or swingers, or physical abusers, but not between two gay people who really love each other?

Have you asked the owner of the Masterpiece shop about this or are you spinning this into something false that helps support your assumptions?
He won't bite, call and ask him.
Also I'm not sure if you saw an edit I made on my last post. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by dronedodger
 



dronedodger
She said her father isn't baking any wedding for now.


That is certainly a legal and viable option. I would support that. But if he's going to make wedding cakes for straight people and dogs, then he is legally obliged to make them for gay people as well.



They're appealing the judgment.


Another legal and viable recourse. I don't see any way the ruling could be overturned, but he can take it to the Supreme Court if he wants.



People should have the say in where to shop, and who to support and not support via their money.


They do. People can choose where to shop. But business owners cannot choose to discriminate against a group of people.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by dronedodger
 



dronedodger
The daughter also said her father doesn't bake or decorate any thing celebrating Halloween.


See, that's fine. If he baked Halloween cakes for white people, but refused to bake Halloween cakes for black people and Latinos, then we'd see the discrimination clearly. But because the claimants are gay, people seem to lose their common sense.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   

dronedodger
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


The L.A. Times editors voiced their opinion on this but I cant seem to add the article. Its from December 12, 2013. They favor the discretion of bakers and photographers. This coming from the 6th most gay-friendly city in America. Imo, most people prefer choice and common sense over ideology of sexual orientation and force.
Adding edit:
The daughter also said her father doesn't bake or decorate any thing celebrating Halloween.
Hes protecting his actions, not forbidding others from doing what they chose.
edit on 22Sun, 22 Dec 2013 08:36:46 -0600201312America/Chicago222013228America/Chicago by dronedodger because: (no reason given)


Not baking anything for Halloween is not discriminatory, as he doesn't bake those things for ANYBODY. In order to not be discriminatory, he shouldn't bake wedding cakes for ANYBODY either (which sounds like that's what he had decided to do for now). Maybe he should just stick to generic cakes, cupcakes and cookies, good for everyone and anyone.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by dronedodger
 



dronedodger
The daughter also said her father doesn't bake or decorate any thing celebrating Halloween.


See, that's fine. If he baked Halloween cakes for white people, but refused to bake Halloween cakes for black people and Latinos, then we'd see the discrimination clearly. But because the claimants are gay, people seem to lose their common sense.


Her father and many other people feel deeply that their actions can sometimes be questioned by their superior.
He can not in good conscience contribute to the celebration. I read that when he makes wedding cakes, for him, he's also participanting in the celebration.
He's not attempting to change anyone's mind in the matter, he's just not going to have to answer to God as to that particular choice.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   

kaylaluv

dronedodger
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


The L.A. Times editors voiced their opinion on this but I cant seem to add the article. Its from December 12, 2013. They favor the discretion of bakers and photographers. This coming from the 6th most gay-friendly city in America. Imo, most people prefer choice and common sense over ideology of sexual orientation and force.
Adding edit:
The daughter also said her father doesn't bake or decorate any thing celebrating Halloween.
Hes protecting his actions, not forbidding others from doing what they chose.
edit on 22Sun, 22 Dec 2013 08:36:46 -0600201312America/Chicago222013228America/Chicago by dronedodger because: (no reason given)


Not baking anything for Halloween is not discriminatory, as he doesn't bake those things for ANYBODY. In order to not be discriminatory, he shouldn't bake wedding cakes for ANYBODY either (which sounds like that's what he had decided to do for now). Maybe he should just stick to generic cakes, cupcakes and cookies, good for everyone and anyone.

Maybe those who disagree with him should shop elsewhere.
Maybe everyone's artitstic celebrations should be crushed down to "generic" expressions so no one is offended. This is what will happen.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dronedodger
 



dronedodger
He can not in good conscience contribute to the celebration. I read that when he makes wedding cakes, for him, he's also participanting in the celebration.


If that's the way he feels, that's fine. But to obey the law of the land, he would have to deny EVERYONE a wedding cake, which it seems he has chosen to do. That's fine. Sometimes our personal and professional lives cross. We must find a way to honor both. And removing wedding cakes from his repertoire is the perfect solution.

I wonder what God will say about him making a wedding cake for two dogs who got "married"... I wonder if he's worried about answering for that...




top topics



 
22
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join