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

spoffle said:
So your issue is that you just don't want them to say why they won't do it, but the actual reasons don't matter?

I've asked this a few times now, but I haven't seen any replies. Why would you even want someone producing something for you where they didn't actually want to do it?

Discrimination and legality aside, surely if you wanted something doing, and you found out the person had issues with gays, you would want to know that about them so that you could go elsewhere.

The person has the chance to change their ways, or risk continuing to act like that, and continually lose business and eventually closing down.

I don't really get why anyone would bother going through the hassle of going legal, just because they can, that they were offended, and because what the other party did was considered illegal?

When you take in to consideration harm caused, well there wasn't any. So as above, the sensible thing really is to tell people that the bakery won't do pro-gay marriage cakes and to go elsewhere.

If it's a big issue, then they'll lose business.
Click to expand...

No all I was saying is all the people who have a problem with Equality Act can just make up some excuse as to why they can't serve someone.

I can understand why they 'lawyered up', it's to get this kind of stuff into the media to show people that despite 'living in 2015' people still suffer this kind of discrimination. Of all the people they turned down it had to be a gay rights activist lol.

I personally don't have a problem with Ashers, if they don't want the pink pound then more fool them.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
No all I was saying is all the people who have a problem with Equality Act can just make up some excuse as to why they can't serve someone.

I can understand why they 'lawyered up', it's to get this kind of stuff into the media to show people that despite 'living in 2015' people still suffer this kind of discrimination. Of all the people they turned down it had to be a gay rights activist lol.

I personally don't have a problem with Ashers, if they don't want the pink pound then more fool them.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it's a valid point to make IMO.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
No all I was saying is all the people who have a problem with Equality Act can just make up some excuse as to why they can't serve someone.

I can understand why they 'lawyered up', it's to get this kind of stuff into the media to show people that despite 'living in 2015' people still suffer this kind of discrimination. Of all the people they turned down it had to be a gay rights activist lol.

I personally don't have a problem with Ashers, if they don't want the pink pound then more fool them.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, just from my perspective I wouldn't want the law to force someone in to giving me a service they don't want to give, with regards to things like this.

The problem with lawyering up is that it (at least seemingly) has been done to be punitive, as a means of getting back at them. Realistically, there is always going to be discrimination from people, and I believe it has nothing to do with the time we live in.

Some people just don't like people who are different.
 
Orionaut said:
You should be free from any obligation to work against Your will!

And You should be free from having to lie about why You don't want to!
Click to expand...

Legally speaking everyone, in this county at least, is free not to work against their will, you just walk away, simple.
Imported sex slave workers and the like could be a consideration, but the authorities need to be able to identify those breaking the law in order to act.

You don't have to lie, you can tell the truth and break the law, and be dealt with accordingly.
 
koolpc said:
gay war horse!!!!! For goodness sake!!!!
Click to expand...


130821153453-pavel-13-story-top_zpsazlqrcvx.jpg
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
I don't want to have to help black people at my job, should I claim my beliefs are being infringed upon to get out of doing it?
Click to expand...

It is all (Or should be anyway) down to personal honesty and individual freedom of choice.

If you are employed then you are under a degree of obligation to do, within reason (and the terms of your contract), whatever your employer wants you to do. (You are in your employers service after all)

(If you are self-employed you can (or, at least should, be able to) make your own rules as you see fit)

If you do not want to serve Black people then this is something that you should state at the point you applied for the job.

If the employer is willing to employ you on this basis then yes, he should ensure that somebody else deals with the Black customers. If he isn't, then he should withdraw the job offer (Or you should chose to accept that serving Black customers will be part of your job)

But you should not lie and you should not be obliged to do something that you really do not want to do

(Unless you have specifically agreed to do so, EG Military Service, where you have agreed to obey orders and can be ordered to endanger your life for the greater good)
 
Orionaut said:
It is all (Or should be anyway) down to personal honesty and individual freedom of choice.

If you are employed then you are under a degree of obligation to do, within reason (and the terms of your contract), whatever your employer wants you to do. (You are in your employers service after all)

(If you are self-employed you can (or, at least should, be able to) make your own rules as you see fit)

If you do not want to serve Black people then this is something that you should state at the point you applied for the job.

If the employer is willing to employ you on this basis then yes, he should ensure that somebody else deals with the Black customers. If he isn't, then he should withdraw the job offer (Or you should chose to accept that serving Black customers will be part of your job)

But you should not lie and you should not be obliged to do something that you really do not want to do

(Unless you have specifically agreed to do so, EG Military Service, where you have agreed to obey orders and can be ordered to endanger your life for the greater good)
Click to expand...

wot
 
Orionaut said:
It is all (Or should be anyway) down to personal honesty and individual freedom of choice.

If you are employed then you are under a degree of obligation to do, within reason (and the terms of your contract), whatever your employer wants you to do. (You are in your employers service after all)

(If you are self-employed you can (or, at least should, be able to) make your own rules as you see fit)

If you do not want to serve Black people then this is something that you should state at the point you applied for the job.

If the employer is willing to employ you on this basis then yes, he should ensure that somebody else deals with the Black customers. If he isn't, then he should withdraw the job offer (Or you should chose to accept that serving Black customers will be part of your job)

But you should not lie and you should not be obliged to do something that you really do not want to do

(Unless you have specifically agreed to do so, EG Military Service, where you have agreed to obey orders and can be ordered to endanger your life for the greater good)
Click to expand...

Two main problems with your argument....

1) The right to discriminate conflicts with the right not to be discriminated

You cannot have a 100% libertarian utopia, because some rights by definition override others. Thus, as a society, we have to decide which right is more ethical and/or benefits society as a whole.

Clearly it is more moral for black people not to be embarrassed and have to have a restricted choice in competition/employees to seek help from, than it is to protect the 'freedom' of a racist not to serve them.

2) Only works with ample competition

I get the argument that the black person could use another store or get another person to help them, but what happens if all stores and employees adopt the same policy, then you are supporting a complete denial of a service to a whole section of society.

What if Netflix decided they didn't want to sell their services to black people? Would you be fine with the fact that House Of Cards could only be viewed by white people?
 
estebanrey said:
Two main problems with your argument....

1) The right to discriminate conflicts with the right not to be discriminated

You cannot have a 100% libertarian utopia, because some rights by definition override others. Thus, as a society, we have to decide which right is more ethical and/or benefits society as a whole.
Click to expand...

This is of course true and is at the heart of the problem

estebanrey said:
Clearly it is more moral for black people not to be embarrassed and have to have a restricted choice in competition/employees to seek help from, than it is to protect the 'freedom' of a racist not to serve them.
Click to expand...

That isn't actually clear at all, That is simply an opinion. Substitute "Paedophile" for "Black" (Remember, Paedophilia isn't illegal (And Homosexuality never was)) Does that change how you feel?

estebanrey said:
2) Only works with ample competition

I get the argument that the black person could use another store or get another person to help them, but what happens if all stores and employees adopt the same policy, then you are supporting a complete denial of a service to a whole section of society.

What if Netflix decided they didn't want to sell their services to black people? Would you be fine with the fact that House Of Cards could only be viewed by white people?
Click to expand...

Sounds harsh But!

If there is really nobody who is prepared to provide "Minority X" with goods and services then, by definition, that is societies choice and therefore morally acceptable.

In practice this is unlikely to be the case. There will always be somebody who is willing to provide a service. I am just saying that it is wrong to compel private individuals/cooperation's to do so.

There is a case for state organisations to operate under different rules, Or possibly even PLC's (Which are granted various state privileges and that might therefore be reasonably obliged to operate under different rules that involve a wider degree of social responsibility) But the self-employed and small privately owned businesses should be free to operate however they chose. Let Darwin rule, If it works for them good, if it doesn't they will go out of business. There is no reason for the Law to be involved here.
 
Orionaut said:
This is of course true and is at the heart of the problem




Sounds harsh But!

If there is really nobody who is prepared to provide "Minority X" with goods and services then, by definition, that is societies choice and therefore morally acceptable.

In practice this is unlikely to be the case. There will always be somebody who is willing to provide a service. I am just saying that it is wrong to compel private individuals/cooperation's to do so.

There is a case for state organisations to operate under different rules, Or possibly even PLC's (Which are granted various state privileges and that might therefore be reasonably obliged to operate under different rules that involve a wider degree of social responsibility) But the self-employed and small privately owned businesses should be free to operate however they chose. Let Darwin rule, If it works for them good, if it doesn't they will go out of business. There is no reason for the Law to be involved here.
Click to expand...

Well it is the case, you've got one minority 'homosexuals' and another minority 'Christians' having a hissy fit with each other whilst bemusing the general society, it could almost be a sit-com.

Every one is free to operate how they choose and have opinions, as long as they don't break certain agreed rules rules of society, i.e. the Law.

That means you can't bugger Christians against their will (that's a can of worms right there but I digress), and you can't nail gays to a cross., or set black people on fire, or gas Jews, it's just not very nice. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
If I were the christian bakers, I would have just written "Support Rays Marriage", and claimed I was dyslexic.

You can't discriminate against dyslexics ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom