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: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


Thing is. You can have equality or you can have freedom. You cannot have both.

I would rather have personal liberty than a top down enforced equality which somehow never quite winds up being equal but is always a neverending game of some being lifted up at the expense of others with unintended consequences that always force a new legal reckoning in an attempt to level the system.

Anyone who has ever played an MMO and seen the neverending quest for "balance" knows how mythical true equality is and always will be.

Social justice is a lie sold to you in order to empower the elite who tell they and only they can make it happen.

How can you have freedom without equality? What if you were the one being denied access to businesses otherwise open to the public because of something beyond your control, how f'ing free would you feel?

The notion that equality is unattainable is the real lie of the elite, "there will always be the haves and the have nots."




posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by beezzer
 



The gay couple infringed on the bakery owners religious rights.


How? How is that a religious right?

:-)


edit on 12/7/2013 by Spiramirabilis because: to add a smiley :-)


The owner was asked to contribute something that was against his personal beliefs.

I take it then, that you would be ok with the state forcing catholic hospitals to perform abortions also, correct?



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


Amendment 1.

If your religion says that marriage is between a man and a woman, you should not participate in something purporting to be a marriage that is not between a man and a woman. It is morally wrong as far as you are concerned and would be distressing for you.

You have the right to freely express that and not participate based on those grounds. It goes against your conscience. You would have the similar right not to participate in the religious ceremonies of other faiths, too, on the same grounds.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   

theantediluvian

ketsuko
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


Thing is. You can have equality or you can have freedom. You cannot have both.

I would rather have personal liberty than a top down enforced equality which somehow never quite winds up being equal but is always a neverending game of some being lifted up at the expense of others with unintended consequences that always force a new legal reckoning in an attempt to level the system.

Anyone who has ever played an MMO and seen the neverending quest for "balance" knows how mythical true equality is and always will be.

Social justice is a lie sold to you in order to empower the elite who tell they and only they can make it happen.

How can you have freedom without equality? What if you were the one being denied access to businesses otherwise open to the public because of something beyond your control, how f'ing free would you feel?

The notion that equality is unattainable is the real lie of the elite, "there will always be the haves and the have nots."


I'm a woman and was never allowed to join the Boy Scouts even though they did all the fun stuff.

Oh, boo hoo!

I can't go to some places because I simply don't have the money to go there. Oh, well.

I am not allowed into mosques both because I'm Christain and a woman. Dang!

I go to the other places open to me. In a free market, someone will take my business.
edit on 7-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

ketsuko

theantediluvian

ketsuko
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


Thing is. You can have equality or you can have freedom. You cannot have both.

I would rather have personal liberty than a top down enforced equality which somehow never quite winds up being equal but is always a neverending game of some being lifted up at the expense of others with unintended consequences that always force a new legal reckoning in an attempt to level the system.

Anyone who has ever played an MMO and seen the neverending quest for "balance" knows how mythical true equality is and always will be.

Social justice is a lie sold to you in order to empower the elite who tell they and only they can make it happen.

How can you have freedom without equality? What if you were the one being denied access to businesses otherwise open to the public because of something beyond your control, how f'ing free would you feel?

The notion that equality is unattainable is the real lie of the elite, "there will always be the haves and the have nots."


I'm a woman and was never allowed to join the Boy Scouts even though they did all the fun stuff.

Oh, boo hoo!

Boy Scouts is a private organization. I don't know what people are failing to comprehend about this distinction. If you operate something that is open to the general public, then you have to accept the patronage of ALL of the members of the public.

It's funny you should mention the Boy Scouts since it was this year that THE MEMBERS OF THE PRIVATE "CLUB" DECIDED to admit gays.

Private clubs and religious institutions are already exempted.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   

theantediluvian
If you operate something that is open to the general public, then you have to accept the patronage of ALL of the members of the public.



Can you point out the law that states that?
Can you provide any information that states that when an individual opens a business, he/she can no longer have religious freedoms?



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


Then why do we have conscience laws in medical practice? I'm pretty sure that doctors are operating public practices or operating in public hospitals and those laws still protect them from doing things against their conscience, particalurly religious conscience.

And businesses, particularly small ones, are owned and operated by private individuals. They are private businesses although they serve the public.

So where does this public/private line get drawn?

edit on 7-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

beezzer

theantediluvian
If you operate something that is open to the general public, then you have to accept the patronage of ALL of the members of the public.



Can you point out the law that states that?
Can you provide any information that states that when an individual opens a business, he/she can no longer have religious freedoms?


Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II comes to mind.

It put an end to these:





posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 



(7) Public accommodation
The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—
(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.


U.S.C. : Title 42



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


No it didnt. Can I take my dog into mcdonalds? hell no.
edit on 7-12-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

theantediluvian

beezzer

theantediluvian
If you operate something that is open to the general public, then you have to accept the patronage of ALL of the members of the public.



Can you point out the law that states that?
Can you provide any information that states that when an individual opens a business, he/she can no longer have religious freedoms?


Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II comes to mind.

It put an end to these:



I stated religious freedoms, not disgusting bigotry.
edit on 7-12-2013 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Why would you be so mean and hurtfull to deny baking a cake for someone just because they are Gay? Was this a genitalia shaped cake requested or some other uncouth rendering of the pastry arts? Or perhaps... just old fashioned HYPOCRISY on the part of the Bible thumping bakers? First they refused cake to the gays and I said nothing, then the bi-sexuals and I still said nothing, then the trans- sexuals and still I said nothing, then the heterosexuals and I still said nothing...because... sexuality and cake don't go together.
edit on 7-12-2013 by HUMBLEONE because: Sorry, licking maple buttercream frosting off from fingers.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


So, it's a public accommodation. That doesn't mean all services within in must then be automatically offered to all.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by HUMBLEONE
 


Why would the homosexuals be so mean and hurtful as to demand that the Christians participate in a ceremony that does against their beliefs and violates their conscience?

No one batted an eye when the gay bar owners stopped hosting bachelorette parties because they felt it was hurtful to them.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

ketsuko

Rosha

ketsuko
Or look at it this way - You have a regular customer who is 60 or so, and one day he comes in asking you to make a cake celebrating his wedding. The lucky bride will be a 10-year-old girl. Should you be forced to make that cake?

edit on 7-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



This man would be committing a crime against the law of the land. Large difference.


No, what he is doing is perfectly acceptable in some cultures. This is a good hypothetical. You can't dismiss it as against the law of the land. Gay marriage used to be against the law of the land, too. Laws change, and Islam and Shari'a could bring this to our shores.

Right now, there is a movement in the psychological community to dismiss pedophilia as a mental disorder. They actually did move it out of that category in this last revision, but outcry forced them to change it ... online. The published won't be changed until the next revision. This is exactly how the current gay rights movement started back in '73.

So, no, it's not impossible that you could see this situation crop up in America in the future.
edit on 7-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



In 2013 USA, child marriage, child rape, and other forms of pedophilia are crimes and so they ARE against the law of the land. Being gay is not a crime in the USA. Being gay has NOTHING to do with pedophilia or criminal practices either.

In 1960 USA, being a black boy and sleeping with a white girl WAS a crime. Mixed marriages between black and whites was illegal. People saw how ridiculous and stupid and anti-human this was and rose up in defiance, now it is no longer a crime and people are free to "mix breed' as they choose. People grew up got over themselves and the world didn't end.

The decision and debate regarding removal of pedophilia from the DSMV was in part that it was felt that it needed to be reinforced that it is an intentional CRIME and not a result of mental health condition in most cases. The intentional rape of a child is a crime, not a condition or sexual choice, not a genetic aberration or 'switch', not a gender issue, not a dysphoria - a crime. The action to remove it from DSM initially began under UCOP, and it was hoped it would close the loop hole allowing sex offenders paths to diversion and mental hospitals in lue of jail time.

For the record, comparing gay people to pedophiles for sport and points scoring here is a lame act and intellectually lazy tactic unless of course you are willing to stand here and say you are also comparing black people and native Americans to pedo's and hey what about the suffragettes too - your mother's mother akin to a pedo as well?

This is a thread on human rights, and show me one parent here who would actively campaign for the 'rights of pedophiles' to rape their children. One parent and I'll go.

Oh and the gay rights movement? It started a lot earlier than '73, just as the world existed before the USA was even thought of.


Ro



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
If it were me.... I would not want my wedding cake to be made by someone that didn't want to make it. If they didn't want my business, I'd go elsewhere. Simples.

I'm sure there are plenty of other bakeries that would have taken their business.

They made a mountain out of a molehill, IMO.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

HUMBLEONE
...because... sexuality and cake don't go together.



lol speak for yourself



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

beezzer

theantediluvian

beezzer

theantediluvian
If you operate something that is open to the general public, then you have to accept the patronage of ALL of the members of the public.



Can you point out the law that states that?
Can you provide any information that states that when an individual opens a business, he/she can no longer have religious freedoms?


Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II comes to mind.

It put an end to these:



I stated religious freedoms, not disgusting bigotry.
edit on 7-12-2013 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

All bigotry is disgusting, no matter how somebody tries to justify it. Religious freedoms that conflict with and are not otherwise exempted by law are not protected. However, as I've stated, religious institutions and private clubs are exempted.

Many religions prescribe death as a punishment for prostitution, extra-marital affairs, etc--the bible even holds that a engaged virgin raped in a city should be put to death (though spared if she was raped in a field). Just because something is supported by religious belief doesn't make it protected, if that were the case, we'd have to allow honor killings by Muslims. Do you support that too? Please don't try to frame this as a religious freedoms issue when clearly it is not. Nobody is forcing the baker to participate in a gay wedding.
edit on 7-12-2013 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
To anyone here. . . .

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



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

beezzer

theantediluvian
If you operate something that is open to the general public, then you have to accept the patronage of ALL of the members of the public.



Can you point out the law that states that?
Can you provide any information that states that when an individual opens a business, he/she can no longer have religious freedoms?


what religious freedom was he denied? he was imposing his religious beliefs on others.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join