Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers

FoxEye said:
Fair enough, but you know that the New Testament basically scraps the old Mosaic Law entirely? After Jesus coming the Jews were lost their status as the chosen people, and the old laws were explicitly done away with.
Click to expand...

Yeah you know that all the homophobic lines that Christians use "man shall not lie with another man as it is an abomination" and "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" etc are also derived from the OT.

So if the new testament expels all the rules from the old, that also includes the ones about God not liking gays.

Jesus never put forth an opinion on homosexuality (although some scholars have desperately tried to tenuously attribute some vague and ambiguous quotes to it).
 
estebanrey said:
Yeah you know that all the homophobic lines that Christians use "man shall not lie with another man as it is an abomination" and "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" etc are also derived from the OT.

So if the new testament expels all the rules from the old, that also includes the ones about God not liking gays.

Jesus never put forth an opinion on homosexuality (although some scholars have desperately tried to tenuously attribute some vague and ambiguous quotes to it).
Click to expand...

Aside from the verses you mentioned, you know about Soddom, right? How basically an entire city was destroyed because they were gay (amongst other things)?

The OT law was abolished, that doesn't mean that you can't learn anything from events that happened.

You can't logically conclude that God hates homosexuality one minute then changes his mind and doesn't mind now? Well you could, but it would be weird.
 
Aren't you talking about the old testament though? Isn't that a Jewish rather than a Christian thing?
 
I don't mind gays. They are free to do as they please. What I don't like are gays who take their gayness and turn it into a problem for other people. I mean if someone doesn't want to support your gayness why not just ignore them? Instead they force people into accepting their gayness. I've never gone into a gay bakery flaunting my heterosexuality, so why do they have to go around everywhere flaunting their homosexuality?
 
Mynight said:
Hang on if a certain religion is allowed to not serve pork or alcahol products(I think that happened)then why shouldn't this other religion be allowed to do as they wish?

I'm not a homophobe for the record :D just fed up of the minority intruding on the majorities ways.
Click to expand...

Great.. :rolleyes:

The difference is that in a muslim shop you will not find pork and alcohol.. so how can they serve you which they do not stock..

Please try to use what God (if you are religious) gave you or you inherited from great....grand father (mr monkey) before spewing such rubbish
 
ilcp said:
Great.. :rolleyes:

The difference is that in a muslim shop you will not find pork and alcohol.. so how can they serve you which they do not stock..

Please try to use what God (if you are religious) gave you or you inherited from great....grand father (mr monkey) before spewing such rubbish
Click to expand...

You might want to check your facts. The story he alluded to is real. A muslim working for a major supermarket chain apologised to a customer that she could not serve him X, and she would need to find another attendant to serve him.

Wasn't even all that long ago...
 
ilcp said:
Great.. :rolleyes:

The difference is that in a muslim shop you will not find pork and alcohol.. so how can they serve you which they do not stock..

Please try to use what God (if you are religious) gave you or you inherited from great....grand father (mr monkey) before spewing such rubbish
Click to expand...

Dunno about a "muslim" shop but several of the corner shops around where I used to live in London were ran and mostly staffed by (in most other ways) very devout muslims - but they'd happily sell me alcohol by the truck load (figuratively speaking) - and yes they were muslims, not sikhs, hindus, etc.
 
atpbx said:
The bakers should have just flatly refused to serve rather than giving a reason, there wouldn't be problem then.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. In this day and age, minority's of any description are always looking for legal redress for any perceived transgression of there "rights" Running a business, you should always have that at the back of your mind. Any potential customer can take there business anywhere they like, as a business we have the right to refuse to serve anyone we don't want to. We don't have to give a reason, in much the same way a customer dosn't have to give a reason for going somewhere else. As a rule, if i don't want someones custom, i simply quote them such a high price they take a sharp intake of breath and leave as quick as they came in.
The bakery made the simple mistake of giving a reason for turning this job down.
 
PMKeates said:
Are you stating that as a matter of fact or opinion? As it's not a matter of fact. You are not lawfully allowed to refuse service for certain reasons e.g. based on race.
Click to expand...

Do you need to give a reason though?

What if the reason is "I'm busy", or "I'm on holiday" or "I'm retiring tomorrow" or simply "no."

Invitation to treat, it's a private company, "we are closed".

What reason is there needed to refuse service to anyone ? Why do you need to give a reason?

I'm all for same sex love, marriage etc but the guy just bake cake, he can choose not to bake on a Thursday, every Thursday, you can't sue him for closing on Thursday. He doesn't need to give a reason.
 
Last edited:
estebanrey said:
It is if those reasons are based on race, sex, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation.

Are you in favour of scrapping employment legislation on the basis that a business should be free to hire/fire whoever they want?
Click to expand...

You've been on a strawman roll in this thread.

Just to position things, I am totally for gay marriage, and I have a number of married gay friends.

If the bakery refused to serve them at all because they are gay, then I would have a clear issue with it. Refusing to create a bespoke item based on it's content is not, I feel, the same thing. They would not offer said product to a heterosexual requester, so they are not discriminating the customer on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

When offering services to a customer, their sexual orientation doesn't come it to play. Cleaning a gay person's house, or selling a gay person a car, is no different from doing the same for a hetero customer in a transactional sense.

If someone went to bakery and asked for a cake that said "Suck it Brazil, see you next World Cup", and the bakery refused to take on the order (say because they were Brazilian), it would be essentially the same thing. A bumper sticker designer might also refuse a request for a "Mancheser United is for noobs" sticker, as they happen to be a Man U fan.

Are we saying that any company offering bespoke services should be legally obliged to cater to any customer request (provided the request in itself doesn't break any laws)? That's getting a bit too Big Brother for my tastes.
 
Bunch of homophobic bible bashing ******s, hope they fry for it.

I don't even have anything to do with all the LGBT stuff, I just think Christianity is a series of huge contraditions "Love thy neighbour unless he's queer, a slave, a woman, a disobedient child or belongs to another religion. In which case life is no longer sacred and you can kill them if you want"

If a couple of dudes want to marry in a church and be miserable like the rest of humanity then let 'em, if they want a a picture of eddie izzard rimming stephen fry on their wedding cake then why not? It's just business.

Let me put it this way, if a bakery owner refused service based on the ground of someone being black or an interracial couple saying "Black people marrying is an abomination, they should be in the cotton fields" that would be discrimination - same thing applies here. It's discrimination, businesses can't have religions as was recently proved in the states.
 
Last edited:
pitchfork said:
Bunch of homophobic bible bashing ******s, hope they fry for it.

I don't even have anything to do with all the LGBT stuff, I just think Christianity is a series of huge contraditions "Love thy neighbour unless he's queer, a slave, a woman, a disobedient child or belongs to another religion. In which case life is no longer sacred and you can kill them if you want"

If a couple of dudes want to marry in a church and be miserable like the rest of humanity then let 'em, if they want a a picture of eddie izzard rimming stephen fry on their wedding cake then why not? It's just business.

Let me put it this way, if a bakery owner refused service based on the ground of someone being black or an interracial couple saying "Black people marrying is an abomination, they should be in the cotton fields" that would be discrimination - same thing applies here. It's discrimination, businesses can't have religions as was recently proved in the states.
Click to expand...

A. Eddie Izzard isn't gay.
B. They did not refuse services on the grounds of the customers being gay, they refused to create a particular item due to the requested content.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Do you need to give a reason though?

What if the reason is "I'm busy", or "I'm on holiday" or "I'm retiring tomorrow" or simply "no."

Invitation to treat, it's a private company, "we are closed".

What reason is there needed to refuse service to anyone ? Why do you need to give a reason?

I'm all for same sex love, marriage etc but the guy just bake cake, he can choose not to bake on a Thursday, every Thursday, you can't sue him for closing on Thursday. He doesn't need to give a reason.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. He doesn't need to give a reason, that's correct, but if you give a reason and it's unlawfully discriminatory then there is an issue. He's perfectly entitled not to bake on a Thursday but he's not, for example, entitled to refuse to bake cakes for black people because they are black.

The issue in this case is whether the baker's refusal does or does not constitute discrimination based on sexual orientation (which is illegal).
 
Last edited:
PMKeates said:
You're missing the point. He doesn't need to give a reason, that's correct, but if you give a reason and it's unlawfully discriminatory then there is an issue. He's perfectly entitled not to bake on a Thursday but he's not, for example, entitled to refuse to bake cakes for black people because they are black.

The issue in this case is whether the baker's refusal does or does not constitute discrimination based on sexual orientation (which is illegal).
Click to expand...

But MY point is he doesn't need to give a reason. Period. There is no missing the point because that is my entire point.

Barclays does personalised cards, check out the ones they refuse to print.

Trademarks or company names – eg, images marked with ® or ™ signs
Images or text protected by copyright – eg, images marked with © or other watermarks or notations
Slogans, tag lines, branding, marketing or promotional products, services or images of companies
Images of, or the name or nickname of, celebrities, musicians, sportspersons, entertainers, public figures, film stars, cartoon characters, members of the royal family or other famous people
Contact information – eg, telephone numbers, URLs, Facebook and Twitter usernames account numbers, addresses or email addresses
Political statements or images relating to ethnicity or religion
Images of flags, except for the Union Jack/UK flag, St George’s Cross/English flag, St Andrew’s Cross/Scottish flag, The Red Dragon/Welsh flag and St Patrick’s Saltire/Northern Irish flag. If any of these are used, they can only be images of the original national flags and must not be edited, cropped or have any additional art work or writing on them
Images, signs, symbols or text relating to money, currency, drugs, tobacco, alcohol, gangs, hatred, graffiti, betting, gambling, or financial products and services
Provocative, lewd or sexual images or content
Nudity
Offensive material – eg, images, signs, symbols or text relating to violence, death, injury, racism, cruelty, profanity, obscenity, weapons, firearms, ammunition or terrorism
Anti-social or obscene behaviour, or socially unacceptable groups
Content where drinking, being drunk, smoking or gambling is the focus
Text, unless benign and in the English language
Any image that might reflect poorly or might engender hostility toward company brands, including MasterCard®, Visa® or Barclays
Any reference to the Olympic Games, World Cup or any other international branded event
Reference to any bank, building society or other monetary institution
Weapons, unless in a ceremonial context
Click to expand...

Now who wants to sue? :p
 
Raymond Lin said:
But MY point is he doesn't need to give a reason. Period. There is no missing the point because that is my entire point.

Barclays does personalised cards, check out the ones they refuse to print.



Now who wants to sue? :p
Click to expand...

Spot on! I wonder if they would do a card with 2 guys snogging, and if not, would they also refused a guy and a girl snogging?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom