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: 20
22
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


So, it is okay to limit the rights of people, when their business comes into play?

This is just maddening.

Again, it appears that the business is controlled by the public/Govt in the name of "fairness". Even when owned by a private citizen. Therefore, no private property right, or bastardized rights of such.




posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



macman
So, it is okay to limit the rights of people, when their business comes into play?


It's OK to limit people's rights for several reasons, not just for business. Here's a few examples, but I'm sure if you try real hard, you can come up with many more.

You have the right to vote, but it's limited by several factors:
You must register.
You must be of age.
You can only vote once.
You can only vote in the area of your residence.

You have the right to travel, but again, it's limited:
You must have a passport to travel outside the US
If you drive, you must get a license.
If a motorcycle is your means of travel, you need a special license.

You have the right to own property, but the limits include:
Paying tax on your property

In fact, there's only ONE right I can think of that DOESN'T have limits - and that's the right to believe what you want to believe.



All individual rights have limits. Some limits on rights can be imposed by law, and other limits should be imposed by the individual as one of the responsibilities of citizenship.
...
Citizens also have the responsibility to exercise their rights within reasonable limits that do not abridge the equal freedom of others. Liberty exercised without responsibility is license.


Source

I'm kind of confused that you are surprised that our rights are limited, in fact. I mean... where have you been?



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


There is no confusion as to rights being limited.
I am surprised that many people here are fine with the limiting of rights.

If I have a right, an absolute right as defined by the BoR and Constitution, how are people okay with that/those rights being limited.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


As far as me personally, I am fine with my rights being limited. Most times, I practice self-imposed limitations because I live in a SOCIETY with other PEOPLE, who also have rights. It's a balance.

I'm not your teacher. May I suggest a civics class?



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Benevolent Heretic


As far as me personally, I am fine with my rights being limited.


That is all I needed to know.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by macman
 
I practice self-imposed limitations because I live in a SOCIETY with other PEOPLE, who also have rights. It's a balance.


That is your choice to make.

Just because you believe the need to practice self-imposed freedoms doesn't mean that others in society need to follow suit. Your civics class should teach that freedoms should never be imposed, and that if an individual decides to impose them the common shouldn't follow suit.

But as it is with education in all progressive societies, freedoms are always taken for granted, and children are taught by schools the correlation of right and wrong when it comes to your rights and liberties, not necessarily the person themselves.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Actually, if people just kept things more private, 96% of this kind of stuff would be avoided altogether. Calling attention to an issue, any issue, simply brings more hate and haters out, especially those somehow entitled-feeling people who think what they think really matters to anyone but themselves. Think how simple this all would have been if the people just never told the idiotic storeowner who the cake was for.
edit on 1/6/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


So, it's okay for the Gay couple to openly celebrate their gay wedding, but the business owner needs to shut his mouth.


My God what has this country turned into.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



macman
So, it's okay for the Gay couple to openly celebrate their gay wedding, but the business owner needs to shut his mouth.


There seems to be a reading comprehension issue. Lucidity suggested the gay couple keep their mouth shut. I suppose you're all for that, huh?

So, it's okay for the baker to discriminate, but the gay couple needs to shut their mouths. You agree with that?
edit on 1/6/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 



~Lucidity
Think how simple this all would have been if the people just never told the idiotic storeowner who the cake was for.


But why SHOULD they keep it a secret?

Straight people sing from the rooftops and make a HUGE deal when they get engaged, married or fulfill the basic function of a member of the species by managing to procreate. They don't have to feel ashamed and afraid someone might find out.

Why should gay people keep their lives a secret when straight people parade their personal lives around like something everyone wants to know about?



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

macman
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


So, it's okay for the Gay couple to openly celebrate their gay wedding, but the business owner needs to shut his mouth.


My God what has this country turned into.



What part of "if people just kept things more private" and "if the people just never told the idiotic storeowner who the cake was for." did you not understand?


Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 



~Lucidity
Think how simple this all would have been if the people just never told the idiotic storeowner who the cake was for.


But why SHOULD they keep it a secret?

Straight people sing from the rooftops and make a HUGE deal when they get engaged, married or fulfill the basic function of a member of the species by managing to procreate. They don't have to feel ashamed and afraid someone might find out.

Why should gay people keep their lives a secret when straight people parade their personal lives around like something everyone wants to know about?


I just happen to believe that certain private issues attract hate and more hate. And is it really all that important for a store owner providing a cake to know their business anyway? Straight or gay...why does or would it matter?

They're not keeping it a secret from anyone who really matters.

edit on 1/6/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 



~Lucidity
And is it really all that important for a storeowner providing a cake to know their business anyway? Why?


It's not that it's important that the store owner knows their business. What's important is that the gay couple (and all of us) don't have to feel ashamed, embarrassed or secretive about who we are. What does ANY couple say when they go into a bakery to purchase a wedding cake? ... "We're getting married and we'd like to get a cake." Why should a gay couple bite their tongues? Sure, they CAN keep it on the DL, but they've been doing that for decades and they're done hiding who they are. I don't blame them.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   
/sigh

The guys don't have any rights because they're gay. They have rights because they are American citizens and citizens of the State of Colorado. The baker's rights to free exercise of his religion are not being affected. He's not being kept out of church, prevented from praying, or being told that a million angels can't dance on the head of a pin--he's being told that, since he's a cake-maker, and he offers that service to the public, then he should make cakes for these American citizens from the great State of Colorado able to engage his services and pay from them as he would for any other American citizens from the great State of Colorado without invasion into their private lives not to mention their freedom of relgion.

What? The guys have freedom of religion as well ... in this case, the freedom FROM religion being used to turn them into second-class citizens.

Another thing: it really doesn't matter who's tired of hearing about gay issues. I'm tired, for example, of hearing about supposed Christian victimization as well, for example. However, the Constitution does not protect our squeamishness.

Let's consider a simple converse of the situation: can you IMAGINE the hew and cry that would arise across this nation had the Christian come into the guys' cake shop and they refused to serve him simply because he was wearing a cross around his neck?

"Excuse me sir, but are you a ... *look of disgust* Christian?

"Why yes guys, I am. *beams* Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior."

"Get out. We don't serve your kind here."

Now, to the pro-bake shop people. If you have any kind of negative reaction to that scenario, perhaps you should review that whole bigotry thing again. Just sayin'.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Benevolent Heretic

There seems to be a reading comprehension issue. Lucidity suggested the gay couple keep their mouth shut. I suppose you're all for that, huh?

That is the way I read it.
I think both have the right to voice their opinion, live their life how they want to and not be forced to interact with the other if they so wish.


Benevolent Heretic
So, it's okay for the baker to discriminate, but the gay couple needs to shut their mouths. You agree with that?

Neither should have to shut their mouth.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


You can't claim the business owner was "forced" to interact with anyone when he freely agreed to interact with the public when he got his business license. You've tried over and over to make him the victim and he's not. If someone AGREES to do something, they are not being FORCED.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Why would any business owner want to sell less, sounds pretty stupid to me.

Also how do they know whos gay, i thought the gay-dar was a made up thing lol



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by macman
 


You can't claim the business owner was "forced" to interact with anyone when he freely agreed to interact with the public when he got his business license. You've tried over and over to make him the victim and he's not. If someone AGREES to do something, they are not being FORCED.


Is there a law forcing him to serve the couple that came in? Yes or no.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 

That is my take on it.

I can only speculate that a gay couples money is just as green and spends just like that of a straight couple.

But, it is his right to chose.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



macman
Is there a law forcing him to serve the couple that came in? Yes or no.


No. He doesn't have to serve anyone. He doesn't have to own a bakery. THAT was his choice. He agreed to serve this couple. The law just "forces" him to do what he said he would do. He could CHOOSE to stop making wedding cakes for everyone or even leave the state or leave the business. So, no. He's not being forced.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
This is not fair for the baker - whom I have met and have donated to his appeals fund and ... he has really great cakes - very delicious.

what if : some one wants some sort of body part on the cake - should he then be forced by executive order to make that cake.

The 'gay couple' should have left and simply found another shop.




top topics



 
22
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join