Lakewood (Colorado) Cake Shop Refuses Wedding Cake To Gay Couple.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by hp1229
Its about the society as a whole. The real question that should be asked is why there is a increase in the gay population world wide if not in US?

I'm sure there are plenty of people that really are homosexual, but these days we actually steer the masculine females, or the feminine males in that direction whether they want it or not!...
It is a result of stereotyping, and socially steering people.

Thankyou Sir I was looking for this explanation upto certain extent.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by murphy22

 

Do you know why priests are not allowed to marry?
The excuse is that celibacy will bring them closer to God. The real reason is that in order to become a priest, you had to be wealthy. If the priest wasn't married, their estate would go to the church.

So they mandated that priests and other religious figures,a round 1200 AD, were not allowed to marry or have sex, to insure that there are no heirs, so the church can inherit their estate.

LOL

Not many people know that. I've pointed that out a few times in my years of forums.

I even got a few apologies.

Originally posted by spinalremain
I don't see what the big deal is either.
It is their business and they can service whoever they want.

All the gay couple has to do is find a baker who will make their cake. Shouldn't be difficult.
Seems like this country wants to demonize anyone who has an opinion which differs from their own.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Wrong, a company cannot blatantly discriminate regarding who they serve on the basis of sexuality in Colorado. So the big deal is discrimination. Most people find discrimination very much an awful thing. Especially something like a wedding, a special time for two people.

Jack Philips is the one demonizing the same-sex couple in question by not baking a wedding cake for them. All he has to do is DO HIS JOB, and there would be no controversy.

reply to post by crazydaysandnights

Wrong, a company cannot blatantly discriminate regarding who they serve on the basis of sexuality in Colorado.

You're going to need to source that, or find a precedent setting that as a fact.

The laws are for employers, not businesses and consumers. Some states do protect sexuality as a hiring class, but it doesn't extend to consumers. In fact, none of the protections extend to consumers. It isn't a law. It is barely the basis for a civil action, and those are very rarely successful, but it definitely is not a violation of any law.

Originally posted by hp1229
Why would a single person be threatened or should feel threatened? Its about the society as a whole.

Oh, society as a whole. Right. Because we ALL know that gay will cause social destruction. How blind could I be.

The real question that should be asked is why there is a increase in the gay population world wide if not in US? Is it something in the genetics or food that is turning folks into homosexuals? Moreoever, do you think it would have any affect on the population in the long term? (Japan and Russia has possible future problem with such scenario where the decline in birth rates and the demographic issues).

LOL. Yup, the gays are taking over and we're all going to die out of lack of babies. That makes total sense. Even though the percentage of out LGBT individuals has always been and continues to be around 7 percent. But no, it cannot simply be a natural variation of sexuality. There has to be a reason why those queers are being produced in greater numbers!

BTW, there are more people coming out of the closet worldwide, and more people who are open about being bi-curious, more people experimenting. That's because global society continues to become more open about sex and more accepting about homosexuality, at least younger generations. And that's about it.

It is not a homophobia but a legitimate concern which ofcourse many economists of a country rely upon to project the economic futures and data.

It is not a legitimate concern to any professionals. People who think the world is going fully gay are going to be laughed at by most.

There are psychological and physiological factors or types of gay people. Some are deviated towards the same sex due to psychological reasons and others are born that way.

The reasons people are gay are the same reasons as to why people are straight.

Ofcourse same sex marriages will not be able to produce the offsprings so they have to either borrow or rent a fellow human to provide them with a baby for their selfish motives to upbring a child and to pretend living a normal mammalian life.

Normal mammalian life? LOL. Normality is completely subjective. And there is nothing selfish about wanting to take care of a child, raise them, and give them a loving home in which to grow up. That is in fact selfless. There is nothing pretend about same-sex families. They are as much of families as opposite-sex families. How a baby is created is completely irrelevant to that. Being a breeder or sperm carrier does not make one a parent.

Sure it can work and in fact it has worked where the child turned out just fine (non-gay). However how long before it becomes the norm and a scapegoat for many who just do not wish to be burned by the responsibilities that comes with being married to the opposite sex?

Right, because that's the only reason people are gay/lesbian or enter same-sex relationships. To not be burned by the opposite-sex.

Since most couples nor most people are gay/lesbian couples, it likely never will become the norm. Not as if that would be a problem, because there is nothing wrong with same-sex couples nor anything wrong with being gay. Gay children are as fine as straight children. Saying a child turning out non-gay=fine is completely homophobic.

or from the institution of marriage? Not every gay couple opts for children as well. Ofcourse this has nothing to with the topic on hand but just wanted to express my opinion.

Well, some people choose to live their lives as they see fit. And that's fine. Stop trying to police others' life choices. Stop fixating on others' lives and their orientation. Then you won't have any concerns, because you'll realize these are all non-issues.

BTW, Russia and Japan are both anti-gay countries, so acceptance of homosexuality certainly is not a reason as to why these countries are seeing whatever lack of population growth that is supposedly going on.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Seriously, consumers are out of hand. They are demanding, and feel entitled to order around business owners, and it is just completely out of control. I've had customers come up to complain about things before, and I take their complaint and ask them to leave and never return. It feels AWESOME! These whiny, prick, bastard customers think they can rule over a private place of business? HELL NO. I have friends that are police dispatchers, and they routinely take 911 emergency calls from drive-thrus at restaurants, where customers want someone arrested for getting their order wrong or refusing to give them a refund.

Sorry, but I think more businesses should be denying service, more often, and making consumers learn some manners if they want to shop at the quality establishments. If they want to be trouble-makers, they can go to the nasty, bottom-run establishments that will take anyone, but if they want premium service, then they need to act like premium customers.

I agree with you. I was a business owner. Teaching students "the customer is always right" - - is ridiculous.

Who ever started this nonsense (I think it was Nordstrums or Macys) needs a swift kick.

The worst were the overt religious. For some reason they thought they had some kind of entitlement because of God.

However - - I'm speaking of an obnoxious/rude - overbearing (French Canadian) - or self-entitled customer.

You'd be surprised how people think of the disabled. You'd be surprised how outright rude people can treat a disabled person - - for no other reason then they are disabled. You'd be surprised how some people think they can catch a disability by getting too close.

If you have a belief that denies certain customers (not because they are rude) - - you should not be in business.

I fully support the Federal Law of non-discrimination. Although "sexual preference" is not included yet - - it someday will be - - as it should.

This man would not be having a bakery in California - - - because California does include "sexual preference" in its state non-discrimination law.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by hp1229

 

Its about the society as a whole. The real question that should be asked is why there is a increase in the gay population world wide if not in US?

It is a result of stereotyping, and socially steering people.

I have a niece that I know for certain is NOT a lesbian, but she thinks she is one. She always liked boys, but she was a tomboy. She is stocky (not fat), and her mom and dad are both cops, she grew up around guns, and martial arts, and she just enjoys things that boys enjoy, but she also liked boys up until age 17 or 18. Some of her classmates accused her of being a lesbian, her mom worried about her being a lesbian and made it overly abundantly clear that it was perfectly ok if she were one. She was steered into being more socially accepted as a lesbian than that of a hetero girl with manly interests.

Now, at age 23 or 24, she is not happy as a lesbian, she doesn't have good relationships with women, but she is convinced that she is a lesbian.

I have a high school classmate that is in a long-term relationship with a women, that started while they played college sports together, because the whole team was basically lesbian. In high school the girl was completely hetero, and in talking to her, she is much more sexually attracted to men, and she prefers the company of men, but at this point it is more convenient to stay in the lesbian relationship than it would to start over. She loves her mate, and they even enjoy all types of sex, straight and bi, and they are best friends, but in the grand scheme of things, she realizes she is probably not a lesbian.

I'm sure there are plenty of people that really are homosexual, but these days we actually steer the masculine females, or the feminine males in that direction whether they want it or not!

edit on 2-8-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

I can't believe that you think you know a persons' sexuality more than they do. How creepy. And if a person does in fact choose to be gay/lesbian, then guess what, that's totally FINE. Not everyone is obligated to be straight. Stop worrying about others' sexuality.

Originally posted by spinalremain

All the gay couple has to do is find a baker who will make their cake. Shouldn't be difficult.

They did.

According to you (besides finding another baker) - - - they should keep their mouth shut - - don't complain - - don't make a fuss - - don't put it on Facebook to tell their friends about it - - just quietly walk away from being discriminated against.

Now where have I heard that before? "Go sit in the back of the bus and keep your mouth shut".

reply to post by Annee

You'd be surprised how people think of the disabled. You'd be surprised how outright rude people can treat a disabled person - - for no other reason then they are disabled. You'd be surprised how some people think they can catch a disability by getting too close.

I blew myself up at age 20. I was burned, scarred, and wore "pressure garments" for about 2 years afterwards. I know how people react to seeing a disabled person, or seeing a person in some unexplainable context. Some stare, some avoid, some smack their kids and tell them to quit looking, some walk up and ask what happened, a very select few even make comments, but I was completely mobile, so that didn't happen as much to me as it might to someone wheel-chair bound.

I think the ADA has been a huge improvement for our society as a whole. Giving disabled people full access to businesses, sidewalks, etc, is a great thing. I also know how expensive it is when you open a new business to have to comply with those ADA requirements, and it sometimes keeps people from opening a new business altogether. It has good parts and bad parts, but I think mostly good.

Again though, sexuality is not a disability. It is not protected in the majority of the nation, and even where it is protected, it isn't tested, and it isn't enforced very well.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Some states do protect sexuality as a hiring class, but it doesn't extend to consumers.

It does in California.

Originally posted by crazydaysandnights
Originally posted by hp1229
Well, some people choose to live their lives as they see fit. And that's fine. Stop trying to police others' life choices. Stop fixating on others' lives and their orientation. Then you won't have any concerns, because you'll realize these are all non-issues. BTW, Russia and Japan are both anti-gay countries, so acceptance of homosexuality certainly is not a reason as to why these countries are seeing whatever lack of population growth that is supposedly going on.

I couldn't care less about your other comments but Who is policing who here? Who is filing complaints against the cake shop? Why dont people just live their lives the way they want as per your statement?

Originally posted by getreadyalready

I blew myself up at age 20. I was burned, scarred, and wore "pressure garments" for about 2 years afterwards. I know how people react to seeing a disabled person, or seeing a person in some unexplainable context. Some stare, some avoid, some smack their kids and tell them to quit looking, some walk up and ask what happened, a very select few even make comments, but I was completely mobile, so that didn't happen as much to me as it might to someone wheel-chair bound.

I think the ADA has been a huge improvement for our society as a whole. Giving disabled people full access to businesses, sidewalks, etc, is a great thing. I also know how expensive it is when you open a new business to have to comply with those ADA requirements, and it sometimes keeps people from opening a new business altogether. It has good parts and bad parts, but I think mostly good.

Again though, sexuality is not a disability. It is not protected in the majority of the nation, and even where it is protected, it isn't tested, and it isn't enforced very well.

Ouch!

Homosexuality and Disability are both subject to discrimination and judgement - - because of ignorance. (at one time seizures were thought to be possessed by the Devil).

My mom had polio when I was 5. She walked with one full length brace and 2 "Kenny Sticks". I grew up with people with disabilities because of a group she belonged to.

I do not care how much it costs to make a building accessible. Nor do I care what someone's personal belief is.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Some states do protect sexuality as a hiring class, but it doesn't extend to consumers.

It does in California.

Everything is different in California.

There are things known to cause cancer in the state of California, but apparently they are safe everywhere else. I LOVE those labels!

Seriously though, can you find any cases that have been won in California for a business discriminating against customers based on sexuality? I looked, and I couldn't find any.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Seriously though, can you find any cases that have been won in California for a business discriminating against customers based on sexuality? I looked, and I couldn't find any.

Does it matter? It is the law. How far would you take a lawsuit - - when the law is specific.

I'd say it falls into the same category as: "Just Cookies". Comply or close your doors.

Person discriminated against files a complaint. Law is explained to business owner. Business owner has a choice. Comply or close your doors.

reply to post by Annee


Sure, I think it is important about how the law is enforced and whether or not it has any legal merit when tested. They write laws for all kinds of things, but it doesn't mean they are legitimate or effective until they are tested.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Annee

 

Sure, I think it is important about how the law is enforced and whether or not it has any legal merit when tested. They write laws for all kinds of things, but it doesn't mean they are legitimate or effective until they are tested.

You do know the Unruh law was enacted in 1959 - right? I'm sure in 53 years its been tested and is proven effective.

As I understand it - most complaints/lawsuits are settled in arbitration.

Most lawsuits that go to trial (whatever) are usually high profile with large reward sums.

Most of those lawsuits are employee discrimination.

It is unlikely a small business owner is so engrained in his anti-gay attitude - - - that he is going to fork over his hard earned cash to fight an existing non-discrimination law he probably won't win.

Larger corporations will reprimand the employee and pay the victim off if necessary.

reply to post by Annee

It is unlikely a small business owner is so engrained in his anti-gay attitude - - - that he is going to fork over his hard earned cash to fight an existing non-discrimination law he probably won't win.

Larger corporations will reprimand the employee and pay the victim off if necessary.

There are competing liabilities though, just like in the abortion debate. You can sue the business for not cowing to the pressure of a consumer demanding a service, but then if the employer tries to force an employee to violate their own religious views, there is another lawsuit!!

Imagine this scenario, an anti-gay marriage baker works for a large grocery chain and refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. The couple sues the grocery chain, so the grocery chain decides it is cheaper to settle and fire the employee, but the employee turns around and sues for religious discrimination, and the employee has a much stronger suit, because religious freedom is protected through Federal laws, and there are loads of precedents to support his case!

So, maybe the grocery chain's lawyers realize they can't fire the employee or make them bake the cake, and then the gay couple gets nationwide outrage and support, and groups jump in to fund a major lawsuit against the chain store, and they suffer loss of business, and poor press.

In my opinion, this whole topic is WAY out of hand. We should be free to choose who we do business with. Currently my Doctor is not accepting new patients. Should my friend that wants to see him sue?

This is a no-win situation for employers and businesses, and we are letting special interests destroy personal freedoms and capitalism.

reply to post by Annee


No, I was not aware of the law, and the language in the law seems very clear!

"All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."

How come I'm not aware of it? So, California has no "women-only" gyms, and no lady's nights at bars, and no senior discounts on merchandise or food?

The California Supreme Court decided that the act outlaws sex-based prices at bars (ladies' nights): offering women a discount on drinks, but not offering the same discount to males. In Koire v Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal 3d 24, 219 Cal Rptr 133, the court held that such discounts constituted sex stereotyping prohibited by this Act.

For the Californian ATSers, is this true? I cannot believe this could be true. Not a single "Women's World" gym in the whole state?

Originally posted by getreadyalready

There are competing liabilities though, just like in the abortion debate. You can sue the business for not cowing to the pressure of a consumer demanding a service, but then if the employer tries to force an employee to violate their own religious views, there is another lawsuit!!

That might happen where you are - - - not likely to be a big deal in California.

The religious dominance just isn't here.

(Prop8 and the Mormons is a different story. What they did was illegal. Too bad they only got their hands slapped and a small fine I think).

reply to post by crazydaysandnights


huh? legally he can serve whoever the hell he wants, he didn't turn them down, he turned the cake down. His damn business, so he chooses what he will and will not make.