That's irrelevant to this case because the bakery was and is willing to serve homosexuals. They're not discriminating against homosexuals. They don't care if a customer is homosexual or not. This has been repeated many times.
It's not irrelevant and it's not false.
The difference between what the bakery will sell and won't is separated by the sexual orientation being celebrated by the cake. They'll make a hetero wedding cake but not a gay one. The bakery owners have made that clear.
That's quite plainly discrimination.
Making false statements about the bakery in order to smear them implies that the people doing so don't have any reasonable counter-argument to the bakery's position.
I've made more than 100 posts in this thread, of which maybe half aren't taking the
****. There are tons of arguments and counter-arguments among those
I'm not comfortable with people being forced to publically and actively promote any specific legal/political/social position simply because there's enough power behind it. That's the issue here - the owners of the bakery didn't want to have their business actively promote a specific legal position. They weren't even speaking against that position. They just didn't want to play an active role in promoting it. So now there's legal precedent that everyone must publically and actively promote any legal/political/social position that has enough power behind it. Are you sure that's an entirely good thing?
The bakers have as I mentioned above, made it clear that they took their position not because of political issues, but because of an ideological one.
Here's what Mr McArthur, one of the directors, had to say:
"The directors and myself looked at it and considered it and thought that this order was at odds with our beliefs.
"It certainly was at odds with what the Bible teaches, and on the following Monday we rang the customer to let him know that we couldn't take his order."
Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-28206581
Incidentally, why do you specify minority? I know it's fashionable to rationalise irrational prejudice against people by saying they're not a minority (even if they are and in any case it's obviously irrelevant), but perhaps that's not what you meant.
I specify minority because it's relevant to the idea of segregation or oppression. It's rather difficult to segregate or oppress a majority, since they have the bigger voice and, in the case of services being offered, the bigger spending power. That bigger spending power/voice means that 'having to shop around' isn't going to be much of a bind - there are loads of alternatives for people like gay-sex-obsessed-but completely-heterosexual Asim (whom I was responding to) to go to in the hypothetical situation that he is turned away for being too massive a hetero. Not so for homosexuals, should we accept that businesses are ok to refuse to serve.
That's why we have protections in place for minorities.
It's a shame you always post at night, Angillion. These long responses of yours are hard work to digest in one go, such that I usually don't bother. But you do at least have some reasoning, even if it's always the same reasoning for every topic
