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: 8
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Rosha

ketsuko
reply to post by Rosha
 


Actually, I wasn't comparing gay people to pedophiles, you made that link.

I was coming up with a situation, child marriage, that occurs in many cultures and that would be uncomfortable for many of us to have to participate in the same way that it is uncomfortable for Christians to be forced to participate in a homosexual ceremony. A child marriage would be difficult for many of us because we believe it to be morally wrong much the same way that Christians still believe gay marriage to be morally wrong.




You made the link dont cop out now.

Does Westborough stand and speak for all Christendom? No? In the same light, there are those people who would abuse Sharia and any other law they could to rape children. It does not make it culturally accepted, only culturally endured.

Ro







Ro






Oh, I see. You think that Islam is the only culture that does it? You are very wrong. Fact is that it happens in far more places than it doesn't, and that those cultures still allow it to happen speaks to it being culturally accepted. If it were not acceptable, it wouldn't happen or there would be wider movements to stop it than there are.

Maybe, instead of spending all your time and energy here, you could do some real good elsewhere in the world.

Lets' get back to the issue.

Would you feel comfortable being forced to participate in a child marriage because you think it's morally wrong? If not, then why do you think Christians feel comfortable being forced to participate in ceremonies they think is morally wrong?

And why do you think it's any more right to force them to do it because you sympathize with homosexuals but not with those who practice child marriage? Either way, it equates to forcing your beliefs on others.




posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Rosha

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



lol speak for yourself


YOU ARE SOOO BAD!!! LoL!



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

jimmyx


absolutely...they have no right to refuse care if they operate as a business...abortion is legal, and we do not live under catholic proclamations, and our constitution does not answer to the catholics...if they do not want to adhere to our laws, get out of the hospital business...but they won't, you know why?...it makes them money


And what if your NOT a catholic and just think abortion for non medical reasons is bad?


What is it with forceing people?



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

HUMBLEONE

ketsuko
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.



They just want some cake dude. Are these "Christian" bachelorette parties? Bottom line, in the words of the late, great Rodney King, "can't we just all get along"?


No, they don't just want some cake. They want a wedding cake.

The bachelorettes were reminding the gays that they couldn't have what the bachelorettes were going to have - a wedding.

Both instances were centered on marriage in different ways.

Maybe we could get along better if we all just understood that some people have very different ideas of what a marriage is and agreed to let each other alone about it.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


This is ONLY about religious freedoms.

Ones that were denied.

Their religious freedoms would not have stopped their wedding. They (the bakery) only wished NOT to participate in the wedding.

Are you comparing a reluctance to participate with honour killings?

These Islamic honour killing are actions that directly impact another individual. Apples/oranges and a weak strawman argument.

Pffft. Strawman argument? What do you call this?



Are you comparing a reluctance to participate with honour killings?


I'm saying that everything that is religious in origin isn't protected. For the record, there is nothing particularly "Christian" about wedding cakes or weddings for that matter. Wedding cakes actually predate Christianity and are not mentioned in the bible at all. As a matter of fact, nowhere in the bible is it stated that it is a sin to sell anything to a gay person. So please tell me how are this man's "religious freedoms" being infringed?

I brought up honor killings as an (extreme) example of something that might be religiously founded but is irrefutably illegal. Polygamy is illegal, marriage to children below the legal age of consent for marriage is illegal, most ritual drug usage, ritual prostitution, mutilating children's genitals, stoning, etc etc etc etc



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   

HUMBLEONE


I guess she could sit at the front of the bus? unless it was maybe a "christian" bus, then maybe she couldn't eat cake in the front of the bus? Lets move all the friggin cake eaters to the back of the bus okay?




Now ya gone dunnit!


"" Cake Eater"

LINK
A derogatory term used by Southern and Eastern European immigrants in the first half of the 20th Century to describe Anglo-Saxon, WASPy Americans who knew little about good hearty food or ingredients.

A term used by Southern and Eastern European immigrants of Catholic descent to describe the stiffness and manner of Americans of English and/or protestant descent.

Who's ever heard of hearty "British cuisine"? Yuck! What a bunch of cake eaters.
Look at that stiff Brit in his tweed jacket. What a cake eater.
When it comes to pasta sauce, those cake eaters don't know the difference between "gravy" and ketchup. ""


snork!

Yes, very bad, very very , going to hell, but hey I'll have loads of interesting company..and CAKE!







Ro
edit on 7-12-2013 by Rosha because: I edit therefore I am



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
*sigh*

For the record, I am all for gays getting married. I think the whole argument on the subject is silly.

I also think that the bakery folks were being stupid.

But they have a RIGHT to be stupid.

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.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   

beezzer

KingIcarus

beezzer
Let me turn this around for those who are for this.

When would any of you, defend the religious rights of someone?

What would it take for any of you to defend the religious rights of a person?


I'd defend the religious rights of an individual to the hilt, within the law - bearing in mind the law is pretty free and easy for individuals. I'm not religious myself, but I respect faith.

But when operating as a business dealing with the general public, I'd advise the individual to be careful what they choose to do if they feel unable to provide certain services during the general remit of their work.

There's two seperate groups of rights at work here.


Can you point out for me where an individual loses rights when he/she creates a business?


As an individual you are free (under UK law and US, as I understand it) to be as 'bigoted' (for lack of a better word) as you choose - providing you don't do something stupid, of course.

If I tell a gay fella I know, for instance, he's not welcome in my house because he's gay, I doubt there's anything he could do. That'd be weird, imo, but fair enough.

However, if I ran a pizza shop inviting general custom it'd be different. Even if it was just me working the shop. On what basis should I say 'no pizza for you because you're gay'?

After all, my business sells pizza and me as an individual works for said business, and has all the pizza ingredients literally at my fingertips... but the gay bloke isn't buying pizza from me - KingIcarus - he's buying it from KingIcarus Pizza. KingIcarus Pizza doesn't have the legal right to not serve this bloke because we're a business.

The personal has nothing to do with it really.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by KingIcarus
 


This wasn't a meal. It was a cake for a ceremony that the bakery didn't approve of, based on their religious tenets.

The bakery simply did not want to participate in a ceremony that was against their religious beliefs.

But since the ruling, a persons religious beliefs are unimportant and an individual can be forced to participate in something that goes against his/her religious faith.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

ketsuko

Oh, I see. You think that Islam is the only culture that does it? You are very wrong. Fact is that it happens in far more places than it doesn't, and that those cultures still allow it to happen speaks to it being culturally accepted. If it were not acceptable, it wouldn't happen or there would be wider movements to stop it than there are.

Maybe, instead of spending all your time and energy here, you could do some real good elsewhere in the world.

Lets' get back to the issue.

Would you feel comfortable being forced to participate in a child marriage because you think it's morally wrong? If not, then why do you think Christians feel comfortable being forced to participate in ceremonies they think is morally wrong?

And why do you think it's any more right to force them to do it because you sympathize with homosexuals but not with those who practice child marriage? Either way, it equates to forcing your beliefs on others.



First, please dont attack me , attack the argument by all means. You still haven't done that by the way.

Second, don't decide for me what I think. I am well aware that early wed tribal customs and tradition exists in many regions of the globe and I am also very aware that in most cases this sad circumstance relates more to human poverty and necessity than it does the religious dogma built to support and justify it. I am yet to find one enlightened or even basically educated person who stands in support of it anywhere.

Thirdly, I am now retired after over 20 years in service to men women and children in the global community who have real problems to deal with, so forgive me if my days of doing good 'out there' are long over now and I dont pat on the head a pair of self righteous store owners who dont want to be store owners to 'certain kinds of people'. Ive heard it all before..ALL around the world, and its just the same old bs justification.


Yes, lets get back to the issue. The crux of this issue is:
Not once anywhere were these store owners ever asked to PARTICIPATE in anyway, at the gay wedding. Not once. They were asked to make a cake. They, are cake makers. Right? The rest, is their PERSONAL bias and in the case of buy and sell in an free and open market that is irrelevant as are the private sexual choices of their clients. It's just none of their business. Their business is CAKE.

I am of the belief that cake makers should make and sell as much cake as possible. That's it and I support all cake makers regardless of religious affiliation in this noble endeavor.

I'm also satisfyingly standing with the billions or so other humans around the world who are not still dragging their knuckles on the ground and are prepared to fight and work hard to educate and assist affected communities to spare our children and yours, the terrible fate of being married off to men who desire to rape and marry young girls before they have even grown breasts. If that insults you. So be it. If it appears paradoxical, so be it! Life is paradox and there are some moral absolutes out there I do hold to.
I have no shame whatever is saying that yes, It IS morally wrong to break a child's hips raping on her wedding night and equally to say that it's not morally wrong to marry a person whom you love, one who has consented as an adult to the union of wedlock.

Morality takes it's primacy only in its capacity to uphold and respect life.


But that's just my view ...right.


Ro.


edit on 7-12-2013 by Rosha because: because i kant spell



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Rosha



Yes, lets get back to the issue. The crux of this issue is:
Not once anywhere were this store owners ever asked to PARTICIPATE in anyway, at the gay wedding. Not once. They were asked to make a cake. They, are cake makers. Right? The rest, is their PERSONAL bias and in the case of buy and sell in an free and open market that is irrelevant as are the private sexual choices of their clients. It's just none of their business. Their business is CAKE.


The cake they were asked to make was for a ceremony that they didn't approve of, based on their religious beliefs.

Judgment against them, is in effect, a ruling that negates their personal religious beliefs.

You should celebrate. Their beliefs were marginalized and the gay couple won!



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   

beezzer

Rosha



Yes, lets get back to the issue. The crux of this issue is:
Not once anywhere were this store owners ever asked to PARTICIPATE in anyway, at the gay wedding. Not once. They were asked to make a cake. They, are cake makers. Right? The rest, is their PERSONAL bias and in the case of buy and sell in an free and open market that is irrelevant as are the private sexual choices of their clients. It's just none of their business. Their business is CAKE.


The cake they were asked to make was for a ceremony that they didn't approve of, based on their religious beliefs.

Judgment against them, is in effect, a ruling that negates their personal religious beliefs.

You should celebrate. Their beliefs were marginalized and the gay couple won!





Like most people, I go to the baker for cake, not approval. I do not relinquish my human rights to them when I go there, and they have no right to demand I do so in order to purchase their cake.

No it doesn't negate their beliefs, it just tells them and every other bigot out there they cant use their religious beliefs as a weapon against people they don't like - and yes I'll take two seconds to celebrate THAT.


Heads up a second, take a good look around and see the cost of NOT doing that in our world.


thanks for summing up my argument for me.

Ro.






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



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Rosha
 


Their religious beliefs have been marginalized and they are now second class citizens that will be forced to participate in ceremonies that go against their religious beliefs.

We have a new sub-class of people, based on this ruling.

They are those that have religious beliefs yet are unable to express them.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by Rosha
 


Their religious beliefs have been marginalized and they are now second class citizens that will be forced to participate in ceremonies that go against their religious beliefs.

We have a new sub-class of people, based on this ruling.

They are those that have religious beliefs yet are unable to express them.



Ah so are you saying they are now reaping some of the prejudice religious groups have been sowing for the past 150 or so years and are miffed as its affect is not quite as 'godly' as they thought it was? Dare I say it if this is the case - Let them eat cake?

I personally dont think there is any marginalization of anything in this case except over weaned ego's and public discrimination against people who are different to you. Should have white only shopkeepers in the 60's have been allowed to say white only too after non segregation laws were introduced? Most of them were also "conscientious objectors" and Christian.

If their faith was dependent on whether or not they allowed a gay person to buy a cake they have bigger problems imo.


Ro



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Rosha

beezzer
reply to post by Rosha
 


Their religious beliefs have been marginalized and they are now second class citizens that will be forced to participate in ceremonies that go against their religious beliefs.

We have a new sub-class of people, based on this ruling.

They are those that have religious beliefs yet are unable to express them.



Ah so are you saying they are now reaping some of the prejudice religious groups have been sowing for the past 150 or so years and are miffed as its affect is not quite as 'godly' as they thought it was? Dare I say it if this is the case - Let them eat cake?

I personally dont think there is any marginalization of anything in this case except over weaned ego's and public discrimination against people who are different to you. Should have white only shopkeepers in the 60's have been allowed to say white only too after non segregation laws were introduced? Most of them were also "conscientious objectors" and Christian.

If their faith was dependent on whether or not they allowed a gay person to buy a cake they have bigger problems imo.


Ro





Um, so basically, "paybacks a bitch", right? Blacks were marginalized, gays were marginalized, so now it's time to put the screws on those who have religious beliefs.

Let them suffer. Lets take away their rights and their freedoms! Stick it to the man!

Screw 'em! They are just screwed up people who believe in something stupid, so we can trash their stupid beliefs, right?

PFFT, darned religious freaks!



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by Rosha
 


When someone is forced by the state to provide a service that is against their beliefs, then the state is imposing restrictions to their beliefs.


Think about what you just wrote.

The service itself is not against their beliefs, because they own the business and perform the services. If the service was against their beliefs, they would not open shop.

They are discriminating against others based upon their own beliefs, and the belief has nothing to do with the service itself.

Do they also wish to refuse service to adulterers, liars, etc? Probably not. What makes homosexuality so much the worse sin? Should they right to refuse service to Muslims, Hinduis, etc?

Because they are discriminating.

They do not have the right to take away another's right. Their rights themselves are not being violated or taken away, except perhaps their "right" to refuse. They have the right to refuse, but when they use the reason BECAUSE they are gay, it becomes discrimination.

Disclaimer: one could then argue that refusing service of ANYTHING could be considered discrimination of some sort, but that's another debate.


reply to post by Rosha
 


You are spot on.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Wait, what is it that the gay couple asked the bakery for? I believe it was a cake. What does the bakery make all day long, every day? I believe it is cakes. The couple didn't ask the bakery to perform an abortion, make pork wrapped in bacon, or do anything else that they don't normally do in their everyday business. The bakery advertises that they make wedding cakes. The couple asked for a wedding cake. They didn't ask for a penis cake, or a cake decorated to look like two men having sex. Have you seen the cake that the couple eventually got from another baker? I saw a picture of it - it was a classy wedding cake. Very beautiful, actually. How is making a classy wedding cake against the baker's religious beliefs, if it's something they supposedly do every day?



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Some people just don't understand the concept I guess. They don't see making a cake or providing a service or product, as being a participant in it. Obviously, some people out there feel that it is too close for comfort.

There are certain things I will have nothing to do with, will not contribute anything to at all. Will not buy anything that provides funds, will not even pay it lip service by talking about it. For some people, their conviction is against gay marriage, and I suppose that now, those people now have to think long and hard on if it is worth trying to own a business and possibly be forced by the government to take part in it. Quite the dilemma for any christian would-be business owners I am sure.

How long until segregated communities start popping up I wonder? Seems that is inevitable to me. I wonder when activists are going to start in on the Amish, or if they are somehow protected from that kind of outside interference by living in a closed type community.
edit on Sat, 07 Dec 2013 15:46:50 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 


Exactly right. Does this baker have a questionnaire for each prospective client to find out if that client has done, or is now doing something that the baker's religion considers a sin? I highly doubt it.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I'm already repeating myself.

To those of you who find it appropriate to disregard anothers religious beliefs and their religious freedoms, I don't know what to say.

Anything else may put me in a T&C violation, it is that frustrating.

I hope everyone is staying warm, have a great day.

beez out.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join