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

Originally posted by Annee

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).

But the protected class of religion, as it relates to employers is MUCH more engrained, powerful, and well-tested law, plus it is a Federal EEO law, not just a California one. It would only take one person who was religious, regardless of the overall climate in California. Wrongful termination on the basis of a religious belief would be open and shut!

Are you saying it would be ok for the employer to fire someone based on their religious objection to performing a task? Isn't that the same as refusing to serve someone a cake because you don't like their decision making?

You can't umm...... have your cake and eat it too! AHHAHAHAHAHA I had to say that in this thread! I knew I'd get a chance!

I was curious, so I googled "Women's only gym California" and I got a ton of hits!!

Total Woman Gym and Day Spa

Apparently the law quoted is not enforced, or is only enforced when convenient. The law and the previous ruling clearly state it is a violation, yet there is ongoing and blatant disregard for the law.

If a business were sued on this basis, there is plenty of evidence to show the law is not administered equally across the board, and therefore is not valid.

reply to post by nixie_nox


In this case though they have the option of going to another shop, if we were to force him to make the cake he has no other place to go.

Those who refuse service to me will just get passed up. The way the economy is today there is always someone else looking for my dollar that another does not want.

Raist

reply to post by nixie_nox


All places of business want to create an atmosphere. Think about it. If you go to a mechanic would you go to one that has a neat organized and up kept shop or one that has refuse and parts just scattered about?

Think also of a hair salon. Would you go to one that had un-kept stylists, mounds of hair lying about, and was playing offensive music (think of whatever type might offend you)?

A places of business want to create the right atmosphere to attack customers. I get what you are saying, however when I went to bars it was to get a drink not because of any atmosphere other than if it looked clean. I also only bothered going to a bar that knew how to mix a drink properly. If they mix a bad product I do not care about atmosphere, I will not be going back to them.


In the case of the bakery here his atmosphere could have been much like CFA where he wants people to feel that his beliefs are in the atmosphere. Not saying this is the case but since it is brought up it can be the same. It is a food industry after all. Some bakeries want to be known for only serving upscale clientele others want the down home feeling.


Raist

reply to post by crazydaysandnights


Why not call it a civil union and it would still be a contract? Gay or straight it should be civil union and the marriage could their religious ceremony.

Marriage is mostly seen as a religious idea. Most of those throughout time that have been allowed to marry individuals have been the religious leaders of the tribes.

Raist

reply to post by crazydaysandnights




There is plenty to compare with the gay bar restricting individuals with this case. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You cannot pick and choose your discrimination.

Raist

reply to post by crazydaysandnights


Show me anywhere in any of the posts here that I said they do not deserve equal rights. Go on search until you turn blue I will be waiting.

You know full well I never said that so let us not pretend that I did.

As I have said from the beginning, my issue as with most others is just the terminology used nothing more. Now please either prove I said they do not deserve equal treatment or go back and fix your post so that it does not appear that I said that.

Raist

reply to post by getreadyalready


Hey! Sorry - - not trying to abandon the debate.

I have been trying to break the habit of being here. My life is too complicated to spend the amount of time I do here.

I apologize that I can't do a serious factual - with links and all debate - due to lack of focus time.

Very high functioning hyper borderline Asperger 4 year old has priority.

Originally posted by Raist
Why not call it a civil union and it would still be a contract? Gay or straight it should be civil union and the marriage could their religious ceremony.

Basically what this amounts to is the religious people want the term for themselves.

I have seen a substantial amount of information posted throughout these threads regarding marriage not being religious in origin.

Personally I don't think the origin has much bearing on the matter. Its cultural significance transcends the origin.

Like I said before, I myself would be okay with what you're proposing but most are not so I don't support it.

Marriage is mostly seen as a religious idea.

To religious people.

It most definitely was never thought of, seen as, a religious idea within my family the entire time growing up and it still isn't.

Marriage is a profound cultural idea...even to non-religious people that do not view it religiously.

We are essentially taught right from childhood the importance of marriage in ones life, and that for the most part doesNT come wrapped in religion (unless you go to Church).

This is a very important understanding. It very much plays into equality.

*Edit: Oops bad typo

reply to post by getreadyalready

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

Considering the California Universites hold much prestiege throughout the Nation (and the world) for their Science departments... you might want to look at those labels in a different light

For the Californian ATSers, is this true?

I have seen discounts based on gender recently in bars. Apparently they were breaking the rules... I might use that to my advantage next time!

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.

Being wrong about ones orientation is but one of countless other reasons she's trapped in a viscious cycle o bad relationships

To pick that one and come to the belief she isn't really attracted sexually to women seems strange to me.

If she starts dating guys you apparently would look at that and say "yep I knew it" whereas I would (mosty likely) understand that she is bisexual.

reply to post by Raist


You should know that according to many liberal supporters of homosexuals, you're not allowed to criticize homosexuals in any way shape or form or it's considered bigotry. They are a specially protected people, because the Conservative Christian element in society seeks to eradicate them out of society forever, and that will not be tolerated by liberals. It doesn't matter if you're not opposed to homosexual marriage, you just can not criticize these special people because of how they've been victimized by those dastardly conservative Christians. It's sheer unadulterated bigotry to criticize homosexuals in any way, shape or form.

Sad to say.

You see, most liberals and homosexuals believe that civil rights and liberties apply only to them and absolutely nobody else. All in the name of being more tolerant than those dastardly Conservative Christians.

Which is why they make a big deal out of these kinds of things.

And you don't just have to tolerate them, you have to absolutely accept them in your heart as normal people.

Nothing else will do.

So don't criticize them or they'll give you a tongue lashing you won't forget.

Sad but true.

Oh, and they can say and do anything they want to, with no repercussions or taking responsibility for their actions as well, because they're special special people.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I get what you are saying. I am not sure we can agree on the origin of the idea, however I do understand you.

Since though as you said cultural significance transcends origin we could just use that.

Origin of MARRIAGE
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
First Known Use: 14th century

Origin:
1250–1300; Middle English marien < Old French marier < Latin marītāre to wed, derivative of marītus conjugal, akin to mās male (person)

www.islandmix.com...

But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property.

It seems that early weddings were more about property (the women being property) than love or religion at least in this article. I cannot say this reflects on Native American culture though; however I admit it might have been nearly the same.

Since though it seems religion has gathered the term and held fast to it over the centuries we could consider that a cultural significance. Either way the origin is still up for debate it seems and is still being studied. At this point t seems to be leaning toward property.

That said since we are on the subject I understand that many who preach traditional marriage are hypocritical in their stance. Many of today's Christians have divorced and remarried. I cannot do anything about them or what might be considered wrong or not. There is no law governing the regulation of divorce. It is so easy to get one today you could nearly get the paper work from a gumball machine. I will say I do not agree with many of the cases of divorce that take place (I understand there are cases that I have no problem with).

Here is another link on the history.
www2.hu-berlin.de...

I do not really want to stray too far from the original topic though. So I will try to get myself back in line.

This is a private business. Many other businesses out there are competing for each and every customer. One man's bad choices in business is another man's profit. Today more than ever there is someone out there looking to take the dollar out of your hand no matter who you are and what you do. Since this is not a government establishment this man has the rights to refuse service based on his religious beliefs. After all they can get cake in other shops. Forcing the guy to make them a cake is trampling his religious rights and discriminating against him.

I would have sold them the cake. Jesus never forced anyone to stop sinning; He was not for passing laws to force people to stop sinning. He told them what the sins were and they had the choice to continue sinning or not. People get crazy and everyone feels like the victim in today's society. Political correctness has castrated the way we live, so many walk on eggshells afraid to say what they think. If you do not agree with people you are often labeled a bigot, racist or some other over used term. As I have said all along I think the biggest issue is with the use of the term and nothing more (at least in those I have spoken with and yes this includes those who are gay and bisexual).

Raist

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


I sort of touched on this in my post above this one to Lucid Lunacy.

Political correctness has castrated the way of life. No one can speak what they think in opposition of someone else without being a bigot, racist, or some other over used term. I guess when it comes down to it when the thought police come for those who are outspoken I will be first in line.

Raist

reply to post by Raist

I would have sold them the cake. Jesus never forced anyone to stop sinning;

To be fair now. You have said you don't have anything against gays, just the marriage thing. If you hold this religious belief that they are sinning simply by being gay (or acting on their gay nature)...then I am sorry but you don't get to say you don't have anything against gays. You in fact do. If that's your religious belief okay. You should be honest though

People get crazy and everyone feels like the victim in today's society.

The gay people are second class citizens. Until they are no longer then they are victims. It's simple really.

Political correctness has castrated the way we live

I agree in many ways it has. I am sure we could all find many ways in which it helped as well.

so many walk on eggshells afraid to say what they think.

Indeed. Or what they feel. Like "hey everyone I am gay".

If you do not agree with people you are often labeled a bigot, racist or some other over used term.

I can't really comment on this as it doesn't give a specific example. Sometimes people are called racist because they really are racist and really say racist #. Just because that word has been thrown around unjustifiably doesn't mean racism isn't prevelant. Apply that to bigot and homosexuaity, same deal.

Forcing the guy to make them a cake is trampling his religious rights and discriminating against him.

Honestly Law and business are out of the scope of my knowledge. You all have been making some good points. I don't fully understand them all... concerning business law. But here is an example I am curious about in response. You mentioned the shop owner was the one being discriminated against because his beliefs were being discriminated against.

The religious beliefs are protected. Race is protected. So imagine if in this example the shop owner had religious beliefs against dark-skinned people and refused to make a wedding cake for a black couple. Same outrage from the customer. I guess they are both being discriminated against? Both 'protected'. His religious beliefs are being descrimanted and the couples race is being descrimanted. How would this fair in court?? Which one takes precedence??

As I have said all along I think the biggest issue is with the use of the term and nothing more

Here is my biggest issue with the term.

Heterosexual married couple kathy and Jim give birth to a girl. They name her Sarah. She goes to school, she has friends, she plays sports, she watches movies. Her entire childhood and teen years she has heard about marriage from her family, from her friends, from school, and from the media. She loved the Disney movies as a kid and remembers day dreaming about being Ariel getting married in the Little Mermaid. She never stopped fantasizing about one day getting married and planning her wedding. She often talks about this with her other friends who are excited for the same.

She gets to college and she musters the courage to tell people she is gay and becomes open about it. She finds someone, falls in love, enters a long term relationship and finally that lifelong dream of marriage is going to happen, her partner said "yes". But it's not. She is not allowed to get married like Ariel in the Little Mermaid because she isn't marrying Prince Eric. She can't get married like many of her closest friends have. Not like her loving parents did. Because she's gay. No says the World, but we have something else for people like you...it's basically the same thing.

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Hey! Sorry - - not trying to abandon the debate.

I have been trying to break the habit of being here. My life is too complicated to spend the amount of time I do here.

I apologize that I can't do a serious factual - with links and all debate - due to lack of focus time.

Very high functioning hyper borderline Asperger 4 year old has priority.

I totally understand that!! I spend far too much time on ATS myself. Sometimes it impacts my work and I get behind, or I get a lecture from the wife at home.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
You should know that according to many liberal supporters of homosexuals, you're not allowed to criticize homosexuals in any way shape or form or it's considered bigotry.

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

Criticizing LGBT people solely because they are LGBT is, yes, bigotry, and yes, evil. And it's not just liberals who realize this. And it's not a political position, either. It's common sense. Being anti-gay is wrong. No-one should have to be told this.

Originally posted by Raist
Why not call it a civil union and it would still be a contract? Gay or straight it should be civil union and the marriage could their religious ceremony.

Marriage is mostly seen as a religious idea. Most of those throughout time that have been allowed to marry individuals have been the religious leaders of the tribes.

Raist

Just because marriage is seen as religious does not make it religious, because it simply is not. The term is marriage, and that's what it will be called. Logistical issues will rear their head when we start changing terms and shifting things every which way simply to suit how some people feel. Feeling have little to do with legal rights.

reply to post by crazydaysandnights


No it isn't, and all you're trying to do is force your beliefs onto everybody else.

Truth is the truth, you're a bunch of hateful intolerant people.

Now, go ahead and call me a homophobe and insult me some more, you will not intimidate me. I see right through your stupid idiocy.

As I said, if you want respect, treat people with respect, which is something people like you are incapable of doing.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by crazydaysandnights

 

No it isn't, and all you're trying to do is force your beliefs onto everybody else.

Truth is the truth, you're a bunch of hateful intolerant people.

Now, go ahead and call me a homophobe and insult me some more, you will not intimidate me. I see right through your stupid idiocy.

As I said, if you want respect, treat people with respect, which is something people like you are incapable of doing.

I have seen over and over the meme that Chick-fil-a donates millions to hate grouns but have seen zero factual evidence of this. Or is anyone how disagrees with the left now a hate group jsut like anyone who disagrees with tehm is a racist. Both memes are getting so tired and overused they really don't mean much anymore. Let's see some eral, direct connection that isn't form Daily Kos or that most hatelful person himself, MOrris Dees.

Originally posted by Raist
I do not really want to stray too far from the original topic though. So I will try to get myself back in line.

This is a private business. Many other businesses out there are competing for each and every customer. One man's bad choices in business is another man's profit. Today more than ever there is someone out there looking to take the dollar out of your hand no matter who you are and what you do. Since this is not a government establishment this man has the rights to refuse service based on his religious beliefs. After all they can get cake in other shops. Forcing the guy to make them a cake is trampling his religious rights and discriminating against him.

I would have sold them the cake. Jesus never forced anyone to stop sinning; He was not for passing laws to force people to stop sinning. He told them what the sins were and they had the choice to continue sinning or not. People get crazy and everyone feels like the victim in today's society. Political correctness has castrated the way we live, so many walk on eggshells afraid to say what they think. If you do not agree with people you are often labeled a bigot, racist or some other over used term. As I have said all along I think the biggest issue is with the use of the term and nothing more (at least in those I have spoken with and yes this includes those who are gay and bisexual).

Raist

Again, it has to be said, marriage is not a religious union and just because organized religion has attached itself to the institution of marriage, does not change this.

Now, first of all, no, this man Jack Philips does not have the right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the state of Colorado. He does not. Being a private business does not change that because ultimately he opens his service to the public and when you do that, you cannot selectively serve individuals on the basis of orientation.

Secondly, it's not political correctness to call a spade a spade.

Lastly, to say Jesus "did not force people to stop sinning" is a little disingenuous. Because in fact, people were stoned, people were burned, people were shunned, and people were condemned to an eternity in Hell after their physical life if they didn't repent of their sins. And if being gay in itself is a sin, that means gay people are basically born to what, die? That's not really not forcing people to stop sinning. It's more like setting a person up for failure without they having any consent in the matter.