HIDDEN CAMERA: Gay Wedding Cake At Muslim Bakeries

a reply to: IAMTAT

Just watched the video and not buying it.

First off they wanted a PICTURE on the cake...having had to do the same for various birthdays...NO...Most little bakeries DONT DO PICTURES ON CAKE..it requires an expensive food printer...THAT is why the guy says he will have to go to Kroeger...beyond that it looks like the filmer heavily edited and exploited communication difficulties to portray something other than what happened.

Why not have more than the rapid clips and editing? Why ask a small bakery to do a Photo-Cake?

My BS meter is through the roof.

Not saying its not possible that some Muslim owned bakeries would refuse to do a gay wedding cake, just like Christian owned bakeries etc...but the video shown is pure BS IMO. I will try to hunt down a longer video than the clips in what you provided.

For all, no hatred necessary. Just leave each person or business alone and let them live in peace as long as we are not being harmed directly by them.

Here on ATS, I think we all can agree that being black/red/yellow OR white surely was not in any accepted religion a known "blaspheme" to the belief of the deity. At least to the ones we acknowledge in society. We all can sense that the Ku Klux Klan bigots would say it is their "religious" belief, though I see no way they can conclude that from the Bible. Surely, society shuns those of that ilk who make it up and just are filled with hatred.

This argument that one or two present of these situations not being the same thing, miss the point entirely. Regardless of the circumstances that lead up to the refusal. Both the Christian and Muslim shops refused service based on the basic premise that their moral beliefs were being compromised if they sold their product to these people. Had this been gays being asked to put something that compromised their beliefs and they refused, I believe they would get the same treatment from the media as the Muslim bakery has so far, crickets.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Okay...HERE it is.
A video showing MUSLIM bakeries in Deaborn Michigan refusing to bake a wedding cake for a guy's gay wedding.
Will we hear the cries of 'homophobia' from the Twitter brigades?
Will Michigan be boycotted?

I don't know?

Did Michigan state legislators pass a law supporting Muslim business owners who discriminate in their businesses based on the teachings of the Koran and shielding them from federal non-discrimination laws?

You seem utterly un-informed about the controversy?

I'm informed on the controversy, though it appears you are not.

RFRA legislation has been proposed in MI and is currently under debate.

The Muslim bakeries highlighted in the video are currently vulnerable to legal action from the LGBT community...yet, there have apparently been no lawsuits brought against them.

Where is the Media and Twitter-based outrage towards these particular businesses?
I'll wait, while you show me examples.

Grandma's points seem the most accurate observations to both the situations of refusal of services based on moral beliefs AND the RIGHT to live life as YOU see fit.

Refusing to serve people for skin color IS wrong as there is no moral reason to do that even if a bigot feels justified. However what the religions HAVE deemed blasphemous, are the true basis for this refusal and the liberals give the Muslim shop a pass for their moral belief.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Show me an example of any of these Muslim bakeries being asked to make a generic wedding cake with no special decoration. I'll wait.

a reply to: Justoneman

What about the curse of Ham?

originally posted by: WTFover
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So, what about demanding government coerce a gay-owned sign shop print signs for a Westboro Baptist Church protest?

good question

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
a reply to: beezzer

i do believe a business should be able to exercise the right to refuse someones business but not just because of their skin color or sexual preference or religion, that's discrimination and that should have ended a long time ago. i just fear that gay people would be subject to discrimination because of these types of laws, it would be like when there were water fountains and hotels for blacks only.

Not going to happen. You can't tell by looking at someone if they are gay or not gay.

As long as they don't flaunt what they do in the bedroom, no one would know nor would they be able to discriminate.
I am not saying they should keep their homosexuality a secret, but they don't have to announce it to the world if they don't want to. I don't run around saying, I do my husband every chance I get, look at my heterosexuality, isn't it grand, isn't it wonderful. They'd have to say "I'm gay and drinking from a heterosexual water fountain." for anyone to even know.

Skin color and racial characteristics are out in the open and easily discriminated against.

Also, as Beezer pointed out, there is no religion on the face of the earth that I know of that says endorses discrimination based on race or racial characteristics.

a reply to: grandmakdw

just so you know, when i said jews in name only, i didn't mean the practicing jews were part of that number. i believe practicing jews are one of the targets, as my post demonstrates. all religion is the target, except for maybe buddhists but they are already coming to fisticuffs with muslims, so there's no way of knowing on that score.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Justoneman

What about the curse of Ham?

That is widely misunderstood. No one knows what Ham looked like, no one, do you, does the bible say, no.

This is a frequently abused scripture.

Besides the curse was not on Ham, it was on his son.
And, do you know what his son looked liked? Does the Bible say?
Why would this grandson look any different than this brothers?
This is a total and complete mythology.
All the brothers most likely look like brothers do today, fairly similar.

I had to respond because this is an example of twisted atheistic logic when it
comes to "knowing" what Christians or Jews "must" think
on a given topic.

It also has nothing to do with the OP.



What a bigoted question to even ask.

originally posted by: grandmakdw


As long as they don't flaunt what they do in the bedroom, no one would know nor would they be able to discriminate.

That's not really true. If a gay couple goes in to a bakery to ask about a wedding cake for their upcoming ceremony, they aren't exactly shouting to the world that they have gay sex. If a gay couple walks into any store holding hands (as many heterosexual couples do), it's not screaming about having anal sex is it?

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: IAMTAT

I agree; there are double-standards when it comes to holding all religious zealots accountable to civil rights.

Indeed, like the CHRISTIAN Church and its former convict preacher putting a sign up outside demanding that gay people be stoned to death, and not even getting a knock on the door from the NYPD.

The CHRISTIAN Lawyer in California who recently submitted a bill calling for the execution of all LGBT people in the state, and not getting a knock on the door from the FBI, California Police or the NSA.

But Muslim? You better hope and pray you don't end up in a black site being tortured to death by the corporate lackeys of the previous Bush administration.

They sure are some hypocrite rules you have in the good ol' US of A, where "religious freedom" is used by all to abuse and attack other people in society, even threaten to murder them under the name of "faith", while only one religious group is actually ever held to account for being dangerous radicals.

Hell, in the good ol' US of A you can preach about the murder of others and probably be f-ing elected to office - as long as you're a God Fearing Bible Thumper and not one of those brown folks with a different book of BS to preach from.

the reporter tries to make the case that this is all due to religion. but buddhists are atheists, who follow buddhism as a here and now life practice, not an afterlife practice.

a reply to: grandmakdw

And yet it was used repeatedly in early America to justify enslavement of the black man.

It may have been misunderstood - much like the whole "gay marriage is evil" attitude comes from misunderstood scripture.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: grandmakdw

And yet it was used repeatedly in early America to justify enslavement of the black man.

It may have been misunderstood - much like the whole "gay marriage is evil" attitude comes from misunderstood scripture.

you know, i know you are smart enough to realize that a handful does not equal a country full. and its always the handful who rise to the top because the average member of society is under represented in the media and history text books. why else did some of our ancestors go to war to free them from slavery? and in return, we're told that it doesn't matter, we're still racist assholes. you.can't.make.this.#.up!

This story presents progressive liberals with a 'Sophie's Choice'...

They will ask themselves:
Do we support the LGBT community and throw Muslims under the campaign bus?
Do we support the Muslims and throw the LGBT community under the campaign bus?

So WHAT will we ultimately hear from Progressive Liberals, the LGBT community, and CAIR (as well as their media handmaidens) on this?

....Crickets...

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: grandmakdw

And yet it was used repeatedly in early America to justify enslavement of the black man.

It may have been misunderstood - much like the whole "gay marriage is evil" attitude comes from misunderstood scripture.

So it is misunderstanding scripture when both God and Jesus taught marriage exclusively in man/woman terms. If they had meant it to be taught in terms of simply "any two people who love each other," then that is the language that would have been used. Christ at least taught in Rome which had it's share of tolerance toward homosexuality.

Not to mention ... the people who eventually overthrew slavery also used scripture to justify the ending of it.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: grandmakdw

And yet it was used repeatedly in early America to justify enslavement of the black man.

It may have been misunderstood - much like the whole "gay marriage is evil" attitude comes from misunderstood scripture.

So it is misunderstanding scripture when both God and Jesus taught marriage exclusively in man/woman terms. If they had meant it to be taught in terms of simply "any two people who love each other," then that is the language that would have been used. Christ at least taught in Rome which had it's share of tolerance toward homosexuality.

Not to mention ... the people who eventually overthrew slavery also used scripture to justify the ending of it.

Perhaps Jesus used man and woman as his example because that was simply the most common type of marriage - just like today. Still doesn't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he would be against two gay people who wanted to commit to each other in a stable, loving way.

originally posted by: ketsuko


Not to mention ... the people who eventually overthrew slavery also used scripture to justify the ending of it.

This just proves that you can use scripture to justify anything that you want - good or bad.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Okay...HERE it is.
A video showing MUSLIM bakeries in Deaborn Michigan refusing to bake a wedding cake for a guy's gay wedding.
Will we hear the cries of 'homophobia' from the Twitter brigades?
Will Michigan be boycotted?

I don't know?

Did Michigan state legislators pass a law supporting Muslim business owners who discriminate in their businesses based on the teachings of the Koran and shielding them from federal non-discrimination laws?

You seem utterly un-informed about the controversy?

RFRA legislation has been proposed in MI and is currently under debate.

Someone proposing something is different than actually passing a law? State lawmakers propose nonsense all the time...why do you think this is the same as Indiana? Who actually passed a bill. Would also need to see the wording of the MI law to see if it was the same?

The Muslim bakeries highlighted in the video are currently vulnerable to legal action from the LGBT community...yet, there have apparently been no lawsuits brought against them.

Not sure they are...cuz the vid looks BS to me? And a set up from the get-go, asking small bakeries to do a photo-cake...Heavily edited...so whether those specific bakeries would be vulnerable I don't know.


But in general...How many gay couples seek out bakeries in the heart of Muslim communities to do their cake? Not sure there is much real world here vs. a gay couple walking into a bakery in their own community that you would not know to have some cultural bigotry otherwise. BUT - Yes, Muslim owned...Christian owned...Athiest owned...KKK Owned...everyone must play by the same rules and can't pick and choose their customers based on their religion.

Where is the Media and Twitter-based outrage towards these particular businesses?
I'll wait, while you show me examples.

Sure there is "Media Outrage"..just from less reliable media that is more concerned with stroking people's ideology as a business model than they are with accuracy...cuz this video really sucks in the credibility department...a collection of 6-10 second clips out of context.

Here you go on the media examples..
www.westernjournalism.com...
pjmedia.com...
twitchy.com...
therightscoop.com...
www.bizpacreview.com...

Hell I got thousands of returns on the search for the article..

NOW..if you are asking why any organization that isn't a crappy little "we make money by stroking people's ideology and get paid by advertisers for click through" isn't covering it ...well they are worried about their credibility, as would I be....cuz again it looks HEAVILY edited...lots of his opinion and little actual evidence...

that compared to a documented, legal case making it's way through the courts. You do know that the other Christian Baker vs. Gay Couple case is an actual full fledged, documented, legal battle with dispositions etc.?

Why do you think a bunch of rambling opinion mixed with painfully small youtube edits should garner the same credibility and attention?