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: 21
22
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jibajaba
 


If he makes cakes with body parts on them already, then he would be obligated to make one for them.

He makes wedding cakes (no body parts). So, he is obligated to make one for them or stop making wedding cakes for everyone.




posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   

jibajaba
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.


You make it sound like the wedding cake for the gay couple required "gay sugar", or "gay flour", or "gay eggs". I believe it required the same sugar, flour and eggs as any other wedding cake the baker makes, no?

What if: every bakery decided to stop servicing gay couples? Where would the gay couple go then?



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Benevolent Heretic


No. He doesn't have to serve anyone.

The state law suggests otherwise.


Benevolent Heretic
He doesn't have to own a bakery.THAT was his choice.

One of the few choices left I guess.



Benevolent Heretic
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.

Govt force is still being applied.
edit on 8-1-2014 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Sounds like you're just cranky because people have to obey the laws. We live in a society with other people. It's not just about you and what you want or what you think.

If you think the law sucks, then do something about it. But to sit around and complain because people have to obey laws in our society is just silly.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 





Is this a good idea? is this a good decision?


The real question here is.
Is W person who believes in X allowed to discriminate against Y person for being Z?

And we can plug in any variables and get the same result. No.

Just because you believe in something that doesn't give you the right to discriminate against someone else because they believe in the opposite.

It's that simple.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Or sitting around complaining that discrimination still occurs.

Has nothing to do with being cranky.

Has everything to do with Govt encroachment, special rights being created for some and others rights being void.

And just because there is a law, doesn't make it right or Constitutional.

I guess your train of thought is just to go along with laws, because after all, they are laws.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 

Then they could bake their own - wut?

Afterall he and his family are simple bakers - nuff sed.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I do not want to strong arm anyone to provide a service. Personally, I would not want someone to be forced to prepare food for me. No telling what ingredients could be added. You know. Revenge is a dish best served cold, or something like that.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Well I held off on replying to this thread for a while at least until I had time to think it over.

I am pretty sure the judge made the right call on this.
If a couple came in demanding the baker make a cake in a way or with ingredients that he didn't offer then he could tell them no and goodbye.

However there was no demand for services that were any different from what he offered to anyone else.

I think the issue comes down to prejudice. I read a few replies pointing out he couldn't refuse service to a black couple or chinese based on their race and pretty much everyone here agrees that would be wrong.

It wasn't that long ago that the taboo was mixed couples. The same reason he cant refuse service to a mixed couple which may be against his beliefs it was for many religious groups 15 20 years ago is the same reason he cant refuse service to a gay couple now. There is no difference. His store can not exclude people based on a prejudice.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   

searching411
I do not want to strong arm anyone to provide a service. Personally, I would not want someone to be forced to prepare food for me. No telling what ingredients could be added. You know. Revenge is a dish best served cold, or something like that.


It used to be that way when restaurant owners had to start serving blacks. I'm sure there were a few "choice ingredients" added in the beginning. Over time, no one thinks twice about serving to blacks anymore (well, except a few backwoods places in the South.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   

macman

Govt force is still being applied.


What you tend to sensationalize as "government force" is actually called "state policy".

And didn't "government force" of taxation provide you with a paycheque for several years? Hm, you should be feeling bitter about that. Somehow I don't feel obligated to hold my breath waiting for that money back from you and your taking of my money via "government force".

If these business owners don't like the state policy, they shouldn't have agreed to them when they opened their business in that state. Businesses have rules; this isn't the wild west.

Tell me, honestly, if these folks denied service to a black couples' wedding because they didn't "believe in black marriage" based on their religious beliefs, would you be in here demanding rights for that business? I look forward to you dodging the question.
edit on 9-1-2014 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 03:52 AM
link   
I find it pretty ironic really. It was so horrible when gay people were forced to keep it to themselves, yet forcing the opposition into the closet is just dandy. Let's be real, that is all they are doing. Forcing people that disagree with their right to marry, to just make up an excuse and keep their views to themselves. "Oh sorry, I am booked solid for the next year with custom orders." Or whatever other excuse they can come up with. You try to strong arm people into changing their beliefs, most people just dig their feet into the ground and stand against it even harder.

If a smart rich guy can cash in on it, building christian only communities, someone could clean up, especially if they got the money to move on it now while the prices are dirt cheap due to forclosures. Hell, someone could move in and buy all of detriot for pennies on the dollar, and make it the christian mecca of the world



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 05:34 AM
link   

TKDRL
I find it pretty ironic really. It was so horrible when gay people were forced to keep it to themselves, yet forcing the opposition into the closet is just dandy. Let's be real, that is all they are doing.


1. Christianity is a belief, gay is a state of being.

2. They aren't being forced to be in the closet about being Christian, they're being forced to not be discriminatory jackasses and use Christianity as a social shield at their place of business. Being a Christian doesn't give you the rite of passage to do things that are wrong. Christians discriminating like that would be closer related to gay people having sex on the street; there are certain things you just can't do when you're dealing with the general public. That's not "forcing people in the closet", it's demanding dignity and respect. Just because you have a religious belief doesn't mean you get to discriminate based on prejudice at a business that is open to the general public, just like being gay and having the right to be gay doesn't mean you get to have sex in the streets.

What you're saying is that Christians want ..

AHEM..

..SPECIAL RIGHTS.


You try to strong arm people into changing their beliefs, most people just dig their feet into the ground and stand against it even harder.


Luckily it doesn't matter in the long run because the anti-homosexuals who hide behind a faith and are bored enough with their lives to discriminate like this are old and dying.
edit on 9-1-2014 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRegal
 


Living by a strong belief system is as much a way of being as being to them, as being married homosexual is to them. Stuff like this is hurting the chances of it ever dieing out.

You really think those loudmouths claiming to fight for civil rights want the issues to die out? No way, then their cash cow stops giving that milk, they do petty stuff like this to make sure it keeps up bringing in their money. It's simple psychology really. All petty crap like this does is keep the fight going, and then the other side just finds other petty ways to push back. What do I care though right? It's not me being strongarmed to change my beliefs, at least not this time....
edit on Thu, 09 Jan 2014 06:03:52 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   

TheRegal

What you tend to sensationalize as "government force" is actually called "state policy".


"State Policy" is still Govt force. Instead of Federal Govt force, it is State Govt force.

Again, you tried and failed.



TheRegal
And didn't "government force" of taxation provide you with a paycheque for several years? Hm, you should be feeling bitter about that. Somehow I don't feel obligated to hold my breath waiting for that money back from you and your taking of my money via "government force".

Oh, I do like a great attempt of deflect and attack.
The issue is not taxes going to Military pay. Great attempt, but not so much.


TheRegal
If these business owners don't like the state policy, they shouldn't have agreed to them when they opened their business in that state. Businesses have rules; this isn't the wild west.

Good hell.
The "state policy", which you have nicely redefined as such, is still Govt forcing people to do something.


TheRegal
Tell me, honestly, if these folks denied service to a black couples' wedding because they didn't "believe in black marriage" based on their religious beliefs, would you be in here demanding rights for that business? I look forward to you dodging the question.

Oh, dodging is not what I do. That seems to be left to you and a handful of other Progressives here.
I do believe they have that right to do so. Same goes for the reverse. If a white couple went to a black owned business and the owner did not want to serve them.

Seems to be that dodging questions is best left to Progressives, as I am not very good at that.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRegal
 


I truly love your attitude of being excepting to everyone.....except all that you disagree with.

Yes, you are a true humanitarian, excepting and all..



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Humanitarian? Nope.

Progressive? More of a libertarian, actually.

Got any more labels to stick on people who shed light on things that you don't understand so that you can go on complaining about them?

You think people should be able to deny black people and gay people things based on their race/sexual orientation; we have nothing else to discuss. You've spelled out exactly what's wrong with your group-think faction. All for the constitution unless someone mentions the 14th Amendment and laws that have been constructed in specific states surrounding them, then you get all politically correct about businesses and Christians. Your ideology is a dying breed for a reason.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree -- you just aren't consistent, and you say a lot of hypocritical things constantly; things I don't let slide so easily. But I guess if something made you money, then "government force" is okay, even though it's forced by the FED. No double standards on your side at all. Must be a "topic for another day" as always, hmm.


Have fun with the money that you took by force via the government. Go ahead to the next thread to complain about people doing things by force of the government. You'll get your stars, bud, but you're still not right.

Better luck next time.

edit on 9-1-2014 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRegal
 


Deflect and attack. The Progressive strategy.


Topic at hand is......................The Owner of a business is forced to do something against his will. And it is rationalized because it is deemed as "fair".

My military service has nothing to do with this issue.

If you were a Libertarian, your ideals would not be what they are.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
What most people aren't taking into consideration is this is Colorado. We are a year round tourist destination. Cattle, military, and mining is a source of income but tourism is huge. Tourist not only enjoy our state, they invest in it.

The majority of the land around me belongs to out of state/foreign owners. We've already legalized gambling to enrich tourism and it's our hope marijuana will as well.

I understand Christians feel strongly about their beliefs but the state of Colorado/residents feel equally strong concerning anti discrimination laws. Frankly I'm not hearing from scores of outraged people supporting the bakers on my local news. It's not happening.

For whatever reason Colorado wants everyone to have a good experience. Residents of my state play host to the world. Christians are not prohibited from practicing their religion but they have to share our state with a diverse bunch. We aren't a closed community, we want to make everyone happy so they come back again and again.

Being mean, nasty, discriminating against the general public isn't conducive to the tourist trade, if this goes against Christian belief maybe they shouldn't live or operate a biz in such an open environment. This isn't the bible belt and Coloradans obviously don't want it to be.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Yes, it is always a very, very good idea to insult, yell at and most important, SUE someone to FORCE him/her to prepare your meals.

hmmm... How about a sweat-spit-snot cake now?...



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join