Sweet Cakes By Melissa Closes After R...

Sweet Cakes By Melissa Closes After Refusing Lesbian Brides-To-Be

There are 91 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Sep 3, 2013, titled Sweet Cakes By Melissa Closes After Refusing Lesbian Brides-To-Be. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

Nearly a year after refusing a lesbian couple service, Sweet Cakes by Melissa has shuttered its storefront and gone to being a home bakery

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#90 Sep 4, 2013
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>
they do not accept just anyone. you have to be interviewed and if you arent gay owned or are affiliated some way with gay people(like having a relative) then they can discriminate against you. very hypocritical.
Sorry, but you'd have to offer proof of that.

Most "rainbow pages" (there is no one single group) simply list businesses who wish to market to the gay community.

If you can pay the fee, then you can advertise.
wtf

Sacramento, CA

#91 Sep 4, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, but you'd have to offer proof of that.

Most "rainbow pages" (there is no one single group) simply list businesses who wish to market to the gay community.

If you can pay the fee, then you can advertise.
the sacramento one..the place i worked for was interviewed by them and because one of the main guys had a gay relative, they accepted the business as a gay friendly business so they were allowed to advertise.
wtf

Sacramento, CA

#92 Sep 4, 2013
they want to make sure the people they are doing business with are affiliated with the gay community in one way or another, which I believe is their right..its their business. I also think melissas sweet cakes should be allotted the same right.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#96 Sep 5, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
And they should be.
Or are you now going to claim that there is a "RIGHT TO SMOKE" in the U.S. Constitution ?
None is needed.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#97 Sep 5, 2013
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>
the sacramento one..the place i worked for was interviewed by them and because one of the main guys had a gay relative, they accepted the business as a gay friendly business so they were allowed to advertise.
So where's the proof they would NOT have been allowed to advertise if they didn't have a "gay relative"?

Nope, not buying it.

More likely they simply had the cash necessary to by the ad spot.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#98 Sep 5, 2013
wtf wrote:
they want to make sure the people they are doing business with are affiliated with the gay community in one way or another, which I believe is their right..its their business. I also think melissas sweet cakes should be allotted the same right.
Sweet Cakes certainly had that same right to do business with the gay community.

It was their REFUSAL to do business with the gay community which got them into trouble with the law.

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#99 Sep 5, 2013
wtf wrote:
no, i think the lesbisns should have went to a gay baker. the gay owned business, the rainbow pages, offers a public service for a fee, yet they are allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs..gays are allotted special freedoms not allotted to others.
Is English your native language, or are you some poor unfortunate who grew up in the 'Hood and was denied a proper education?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#100 Sep 5, 2013
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>
they do not accept just anyone. you have to be interviewed and if you arent gay owned or are affiliated some way with gay people(like having a relative) then they can discriminate against you. very hypocritical.
Here's a hint, Poodle. When you have to make up lies to support your argument, you have no argument.

AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint all have ads in our local gay Yellow Pages. Do you really believe that the publishers of those books interviewed AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint to verify that they are gay-affiliated???

If you're going to make up lies, you should at least put some thought into them before publishing them.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#101 Sep 5, 2013
The previous example of a manufacturer of women's clothing fails because asking them to make men's clothing is not something they offer. If they refused to sell the clothes they make to someone because they are gay, or whatever, that would be a different story. They cannot refuse to some the service they offer to the public. They need not provide services they do not offer.

Smokers can still smoke. They are not denied marriage or any other fundamental rights based on being a smoker. Their smoking can be restricted because it harms others. There is a legitimate governmental interest in protecting the health of non-smokers that makes the restriction on where smokers can smoke, a valid restriction.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#102 Sep 5, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a hint, Poodle. When you have to make up lies to support your argument, you have no argument.
AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint all have ads in our local gay Yellow Pages. Do you really believe that the publishers of those books interviewed AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint to verify that they are gay-affiliated???
If you're going to make up lies, you should at least put some thought into them before publishing them.
Truth in advertising laws would also require that if they are advertising businesses as "gay friendly", the business must actually be gay friendly.

HRCs buying guide rates business on specific criteria, such as non-discrimination policies. It is a numerical rating, not an either/or rating.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#103 Sep 5, 2013
wtf wrote:
they want to make sure the people they are doing business with are affiliated with the gay community in one way or another, which I believe is their right..its their business. I also think melissas sweet cakes should be allotted the same right.
The difference you propose comes down to truth in advertising.

Sweet cakes advertised a service they provide to the public. They choose to provide that service to some, but not to provide that service to others, in violation of both advertising laws and public accommodation non-discrimination laws.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 14 min RiccardoFire 6,856
News Microphone cut after Mormon girl reveals shea s... 24 min democrat destroyer 4
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 28 min Terra Firma 51,288
News A Monument to Gay and Transgender People Is Com... 29 min bja62 1
Can a Man be Gay But Only Like Oral Sex? (Aug '13) 1 hr Dynomite 18
News Gay bar opens near Macon Road, drawing visitors... 1 hr Dynomite 94
News In Turkey, no teaching of evolution, but bannin... 1 hr Rossum 2
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 69,545
News California AG bans state travel to Texas, 3 oth... 3 hr Frogface Kate 69
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 7 hr Pres Donald J Tru... 26,388
More from around the web