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

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


"Classy" would be a gay pride parade?
I have "friends" that are more Crooked than an Irish walking stick. And they would have thought that was hilarious! Which it was. Do not trample my humor life style. You, YOU!..... Comicphobe!

Originally posted by paganini

uh anne correct me if im wrong but you were talking about the hetero pda and boob flashing and what not in mardi gra ?

yep i was right lol

Yes I was.

You certainly are.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LeSigh


You're spouting rubbish.

No I am not spouting rubbish.

You are ignorant of the LGBTQ culture - - - and want them to adhere to your hetero concept of proper behavior.

Yet- you were just inferring the lapse in hetero behavior at Mardi Gras. If this is true, then these heterosexuals are ignorant of proper behavior as well, aren't they? For all you know, I could be gay. I've thought for many years that I'm likely bisexual, but it is a moot issue as I am thoroughly committed to one person and have been for years.

Originally posted by LeSigh

Yet- you were just inferring the lapse in hetero behavior at Mardi Gras. If this is true, then these heterosexuals are ignorant of proper behavior as well, aren't they? For all you know, I could be gay. I've thought for many years that I'm likely bisexual, but it is a moot issue as I am thoroughly committed to one person and have been for years.

And I just celebrated my 23rd wedding anniversary.

I worked at a company where I was the minority being straight. Very interesting "water cooler" discussions.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by paganini

uh anne correct me if im wrong but you were talking about the hetero pda and boob flashing and what not in mardi gra ?

yep i was right lol

Yes I was.

You certainly are.

lol i knew it. I don't see how John Phoenix could have possibly interpreted your post that way but whats even more embarrassing than literacy issues is people actually starred his post.

I guess some of the anti gay crowd people are just eager to support anything that disagrees with your posts every if it doesn't make sense.

reply to post by murphy22


Not sure why you expect a reply from me when you didn't acknowledge or respond to practically everything in that post. Odd.

Anyhoot. I don't understand your reply. I am saying your post lacked serious 'tact', which is elaborated in my post. I am more than willing to discuss if you actually put for effort. I like to use my brain.

Originally posted by LeSigh

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LeSigh


You're spouting rubbish.

No I am not spouting rubbish.

You are ignorant of the LGBTQ culture - - - and want them to adhere to your hetero concept of proper behavior.

Yet- you were just inferring the lapse in hetero behavior at Mardi Gras. If this is true, then these heterosexuals are ignorant of proper behavior as well, aren't they?

Sure it could be seen that way. But people know that mardi gras gets wild therefore if you are offended by say women flashing themselves then you should stay away from the event. If you "have" to be there then simply don't look . Easy solution

Originally posted by paganini

uh anne correct me if im wrong but you were talking about the hetero pda and boob flashing and what not in mardi gra ?

edit yep i was right lol

edit on 1-8-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)

Now that's just silly aside what you see on TV. Those things do happen but it's not blatant as the TV would have you believe. People get arrested for doing those things. It's not socially acceptable nor is it in any way looked at as o.k. to get away with or legal.

Originally posted by paganini

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by paganini

uh anne correct me if im wrong but you were talking about the hetero pda and boob flashing and what not in mardi gra ?

yep i was right lol

Yes I was.

You certainly are.

lol i knew it. I don't see how John Phoenix could have possibly interpreted your post that way but whats even more embarrassing than literacy issues is people actually starred his post.

I guess some of the anti gay crowd people are just eager to support anything that disagrees with your posts every if it doesn't make sense.

It was easy. I stayed on topic in relation to the post. If Anne wanted it to be obvious she was talking about the flip side of the argument, she should have indicated it better. Nothing embarrassing here.

I'd like to hear a little more about the cake-shop owner's actual motivaitons for refusal. I get the feeling we are not being told the whole story here. (Funny how that's so often the case in the MSM....)

I notice in the article he says he has no problem with selling other things to gays, such as birthday cakes, etc. He said he doesn't have a problem with the people or their lifestyle. So it sounds like what he's doing is not exactly the same as "refusing to serve gay people" per se. It might be instead that he objects to the institution of gay marriage rather than gayness itself and gay people. That seems a slim distinction to many, but actually there are reasons for disagreeing with gay marriage that do not involve rejecting the rights of gay people to exist or practice their chosen form of sexuality.

A lot of people want to make it seem that anyone who dislikes the idea of gay marriage is "anti-gay" or a hater, but in fact that is simply not the case. Like all issues, it is possible to have a nuanced opinion on this topic. A crude but highly effective argumentative tactic I see employed a lot is to try to deny such nuances and claim that the only possible reason for being anti-gay-marriage is "hate" or some kind of sneakily-disguised "deeper feelings." But again, this is not always the case.

reply to post by silent thunder

It might be instead that he objects to the institution of gay marriage rather than gayness itself and gay people.

That's an intellectual Trojan horse imo.

That seems a slim distinction to many

Very slim.

but actually there are reasons for disagreeing with gay marriage that do not involve rejecting the rights of gay people to exist or practice their chosen form of sexuality.

First, sexuality is chosen not orientation. Perhaps you don't believe this? If you do, your wording does not express it.

..And there are multiple reasons for supporting gay marriage that exercise the rights for equality and pursuit of happiness. If they are in direct opposition to the reasons you are alluding, which one takes priority in our moral thinking and why?

If you would be willing can you give me a cursory bullet list of those reasons? The reasons for rejecting marriage that allegedly don't infringe on their rights to exist as gay people. I am genuinely interested.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I did reply. Like I said I have "friends" queerer than a three dollar bill. Yes they know I think this of them. You did not reveal nothing, I do not already know, in your post. But regarding the bakery refusing to bake a wedding cake was will within their riht to do so. Much ado about nothing. I am sure if a gay dude was hanging of a cliff or in some such situation the baker would lend a hand. As would I. Just because I would not bake a cake and write on it Adam and Steve or Marry and Karrie. Does not mean I hate them. I just don't agree with them. And there is nothing wrong with that or what the baker did, in not serving them. If you have to force people to accept you... Well your the one with the problem. I can accept you as a person and "tolerate" you but that does not mean I have to agree with what you choose to do with your life and actions.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


It may be an "intellectual Trojan horse" for some but not for all. The fact is, there are multiple reasons for objecting to gay marriage that have nothing to do with dislike or even disapproval of gayness. This fact makes many, many gay marriage proponants uncomfortable because it's a lot easier to argue against "hate" than it is against other more rational objections.

Calling something an "intellectual trojan horse" is intellectually dishonest way of quashing nuance. Its a way of sidestepping arguments that might be tougher nuts to crack, rhetorically speaking.

Don't expect me to mount such arguments in this thread, however...its just not an issue I care enough about, personally. And I've learned that on ATS regarding this issue in particular, people on both sides see what they want to see.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

First, sexuality is chosen not orientation. Perhaps you don't believe this? If you do, your wording does not express it.

..And there are multiple reasons for supporting gay marriage that exercise the rights for equality and pursuit of happiness. If they are in direct opposition to the reasons you are alluding, which one takes priority in our moral thinking and why?

If you would be willing can you give me a cursory bullet list of those reasons? The reasons for rejecting marriage that allegedly don't infringe on their rights to exist as gay people. I am genuinely interested.

How's this. Lets say I belong to a group of people who believe sex with stuffed teddy bears should be legal and afforded equal civil rights. Lets say this movement is huge, 500 million strong world wide.We want it to be considered morally acceptable to take our sex partner teddy bears to dinner with us. To eat with them at Chuck E Cheese and possibly , let the children play with our beloved teddy bears because after all their cute.

What if it wasn't teddy bears but robots that were so life like, they are deemed like Data from Star Trek as sentient beings. The idea is to change the very definition of morality and make something that's not considered moral into something that is considered moral. Civil Rights issues, I can see, blacks should not be mistreated simply because of the color of their skin. Gay people should not be mistreated simply because they are gay, but that's different than allowing them to change the very definition of morality itself. Even the blacks didn't seek to do that.

I wonder why the shop owners would turn down good money. :/

Seems like a bad business decision to me.

reply to post by silent thunder


You hit the nail on the head. Nobody really cares who shacks up with who in life. That doesn't mean they think it's right. But it is not their own bussiness. But to take a word that has been used for hundreds and thousands of years, regardless of language and make it mean something it doesn't is what most people I think find offensive. I personally do not care, one can call a pig a dog all they want and don't make it so. But the next generation growing up will have aq whole no meaning of the word. Just like gay was highjacked to replace queere. Because queere was emplying well... strange, wierd, wrong... etc.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


There was and is nothing morally deficient about being black though. What was done to blacks way back when was not moral. But you can not take people that lust after the same sex, animals, children or teddy bears and claim it is the same thing as what the black Americans went through. Nobody "owns" or "sells" or whips gay people. How ever i have seen them whip eachother in their parades....LOL! Classy!

reply to post by silent thunder

Don't expect me to mount such arguments in this thread, however...its just not an issue I care enough about, personally.

Well that's unfortunate, I was interested. I understand, and I guess it's at a standstill. As far as intellectual honesty goes I hope you can acknowledge omitting your reasons surely is not immune to being considered 'side-stepping'. I was going to expand on why I felt it was a trojan horse..was just anticipating more input prior to. Either way, I understand and it's okay

it seems this world is full of prejudices sometimes.

if i owned a cake business i'd probably just bake cakes for everyone, that's what a business does.

as for the cake shop, i can't see myself getting married in the near future, however if i were i wouldn't use that cake shop on principle.

reply to post by ladyteeny


That's how it should be handled.