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

Greboth said:
In theory yes, wasn't Shelias wheels successfully sued for not providing insurance to men? If they can be then why should we treat clothes shops differently?

What I can never wrap my head around in these situations is, if you get refused service for some reason in a shop then most people would just next door (or 5 doors, 10 doors etc.) to a competitors shop who will do it.

Personally I don't think it is discrimination, refusal of making that specific cake =/= refusal of service.
Click to expand...

Sheila's Wheels always did sell to men ( I got a quote from them), and were never sued. They just market themselves as a specialist for women.

Clothing shops are, to some extent, a symptom of a societal bias in how we expect men and women to dress differently. This is, in itself, a form of discrimination, albeit a widely accepted one.

Of course, there are also size differences between men and women, necessitating a different cut. Men only and women only shops are acceptable since there is, as a whole, not a problem with discrimination one way or the other (i.e. the market is balanced to the extent that no-one is disadvantaged).

In addition, anyone can walk in to a men's or women's clothing store and buy anything off the peg. A bespoke men's tailor may, in theory, struggle to refuse to produce a suit for a woman due to being caught up with discrimination issues, but could cite practical reasons for the refusal - the different cut required wouldn't fit with standard starting patterns, and they would likely lack the specific expertise.

There were no such practical reasons for the cake shop.
 
EddScott said:
Not pointing a finger just picking out a section of this post.

The baker refused to make this cake because of their belief - is this considered OK?

I would like to think I am not homophobic but there are certain aspects of what is allowed/not allowed in the modern world to which I accept but do not necessarily agree with. I have no beliefs as such which will give me an excuse to feel this way, its just my own personal belief - is that considered OK?

Just saying is having a religious belief a means to be intolerant and it being allowed?
Click to expand...

I believe it's wrong to even think about whether such beliefs should be allowed or not.

To legislate against opinions is just wrong, it doesn't matter how morally objectionable a person's beliefs may be (so long as they don't act on them and thus impinge on another person's rights).

Being intolerant of other people's intolerance is still a form of intolerance, so effectively a lot of people want their intolerances to be backed up by legislation.

I don't think there will ever come a time where there is no racism, or hatred of people who are homosexual, and so on, and trying to use law to force these things out of existence is worse than the acts in the first place really.

chrisoverson said:
The way I personally feel is, that hopefully in a few years nobody will believe there is anything wrong with homosexuality, other races, other sexes and so on, that there will be full and total equality and nobody will have any issues or intolerances.

But for the moment there are people who through religion, their upbrining or their personal experience do have issues with certain groups. This is not their fault, and so long as they do not participate in actively hateful acts, and effectively take the "live and let live" attitude then they should not be punished for feeling this way.

Science has told us that the Earth is not flat. If you find someone who through poor education believes the Earth is flat then you don't need to shout at them until they agree with you. As long as they are not causing any harm to anybody you can just leave them to their belief, and educate your own children better. Eventually, nobody will believe the Earth is flat.
Click to expand...

There's more to it than poor education/ignorance and whatever else. Some people have such views because they are thick, and thus look to others to form their opinions on stuff, these are the people that might improve with time and education, but there are also people who are not of this demographic, aren't thick and can think for themselves who are intolerant of other people's different lifestyles/races and so on. I believe this will always be the case for as long as humans exist.
 
spoffle said:
Being intolerant of other people's intolerance is still a form of intolerance, so effectively a lot of people want their intolerances to be backed up by legislation.

I don't think there will ever come a time where there is no racism, or hatred of people who are homosexual, and so on, and trying to use law to force these things out of existence is worse than the acts in the first place really.
Click to expand...

You know this ^ is entirely retarded, don't you?
 
cheesyboy said:
Sheila's Wheels always did sell to men ( I got a quote from them), and were never sued. They just market themselves as a specialist for women.

Clothing shops are, to some extent, a symptom of a societal bias in how we expect men and women to dress differently. This is, in itself, a form of discrimination, albeit a widely accepted one.

Of course, there are also size differences between men and women, necessitating a different cut. Men only and women only shops are acceptable since there is, as a whole, not a problem with discrimination one way or the other (i.e. the market is balanced to the extent that no-one is disadvantaged).

In addition, anyone can walk in to a men's or women's clothing store and buy anything off the peg. A bespoke men's tailor may, in theory, struggle to refuse to produce a suit for a woman due to being caught up with discrimination issues, but could cite practical reasons for the refusal - the different cut required wouldn't fit with standard starting patterns, and they would likely lack the specific expertise.

There were no such practical reasons for the cake shop.
Click to expand...

Discrimination and catering to a particular group aren't the same thing though. The difference would be if these clothes shops outright refused to sell to people who the clothes weren't intended for.

There is no level of discrimination here at all, else you'd say that an off license is discriminating against people who don't drink alcohol, by selling predominantly alcoholic drinks.

The main reason IS because men and women are often very different in physical size and shape, necessitating a difference in how clothes are made to ensure a good fit. It has nothing to do with being disadvantaged, as I'm sure if you counted there'd be more men/women's clothes shops than the other.
 
Maan if I had a bakery this would be a chance to clean up, pink pound thank you very much sirs! Bloody Ulsterons want to stay in the UK but won't do anything innovative to make money and save the economy!
 
Dis86 said:
C'mon man, we all know you're not allowed free will and your own opinions. You must be open and accepting of everything and bow to the demand of every minority.
Click to expand...

This - makes me sick to be quite honest with you.

I'm not one for discrimination but it is a two way street. Just because one person's religious beliefs don't condone a minorities actions cannot force you to compromise... sadly these days it does.

Would be interesting to see the same scenario if the cake makers were Muslim as I would presume they hold the same values in this scenario... Daily Mail would have a field day!!
 
Scania said:
+1


And oh for a world without religion, what a place it could & should be!
Click to expand...

I find it bizarre that you really believe a world without religion would be much different. All these problems people attribute to religion stem from humans being humans. There wouldn't be much of a change.
 
MooMoo444 said:
Don't see the issue with it. The owner of the baker surely has their right to sell to whom they please. It's their business...literally.
Click to expand...

The law says otherwise, if you offer or sell services or products to the public then you can't discriminate on any grounds. Whether you believe in a higher power or not.

This is what I don't get, why open a shop that has to cater to the public whether they agree with their "lifestyle" or not. If you don't want to cater to gays then don't open a shop.
 
Last edited:
Greboth said:
In theory yes, wasn't Shelias wheels successfully sued for not providing insurance to men? If they can be then why should we treat clothes shops differently?
Click to expand...

Well I would say because men are perfectly able to buy the clothes if they want, whether it's to wear or to gift to a female, I don't feel a business should be forced to stock or create something they don't wish to. I think they shouldn't be able to refuse to sell things to people because of their race/gender/sexual orientation/religion but that isn't what happened here.

TheLegendOfMart said:
This is what I don't get, why open a shop that has to cater to the public whether they agree with their "lifestyle" or not. If you don't want to cater to gays then don't open a shop.
Click to expand...
"If you don't want to cater to a minority, why would you cater to the majority"

It's not a difficult question.
 
Last edited:
Tombo said:
"If you don't want to cater to a minority, why would you cater to the majority"

It's not a difficult question.
Click to expand...

It's not like it was suddenly sprung on them, they knew ahead of time what the law says about discrimination. If they aren't prepared to cater to minorities then don't open a shop.

Not entirely sure that they will go to hell for printing the word queer on some cake icing, seems like the shop owners hangups rather than religion, but whatever.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
The law says otherwise, if you offer or sell services or products to the public then you can't discriminate on any grounds. Whether you believe in a higher power or not.
Click to expand...

ANY? I doubt this is true - what if someone came in asking to make a pro-pedophelia cake... or a beastality themed cake? These are illegal acts but are you saying if they refused on religious grounds this would be discrimination as well?

If someone went into a cake shop owned by a Muslim and asked them to print something blasphemous or directly against a principle then how would you see that being played out?

Homosexuality was illegal in the UK up to 1967, it was only recently that prosecutions have taken place, I would guess all or certainly the majority would be against Christian businesses or service providers - if you're a minority then you are the majority it seems.

It is a very anti-Christian move in my view, I would doubt it would get as far as this if it was another religion involved (as it isn’t only Christianity that has a problem with the practice of homosexuality).

Not picking on Muslims here but it is an interesting example as the UK seems to be very PC these days on both areas and I would be interested to see if the law would favour homosexuality in that instance.
 
Last edited:
boxman2000 said:
ANY? I doubt this is true - what if someone came in asking to make a pro-pedophelia cake... or a beastality themed cake? These are illegal acts but are you saying if they refused on religious grounds this would be discrimination as well?

Homosexuality was illegal in the UK up to 1967, it was only recently that prosecutions have taken place, I would guess all or certainly the majority would be against Christian businesses or service providers - if you're a minority then you are the majority it seems.

It is a very anti-Christian move in my view, I would doubt it would get as far as this if it was another religion involved (as it isn’t only Christianity that has a problem with the practice of homosexuality).
Click to expand...
Why, when the topic of homosexuality comes up, do people like to equate or compare it with bestiality or pedophilia...?

It's hardly anti-Christian, you don't have to agree with it but you can't discriminate against it, would it really hurt God to print an image into the icing of a cake, if he existed I doubt would even care.

It's more likely that these "Christians" don't like gays and are hiding behind their religion to justify it.

MooMoo444 said:
Would they be in the wrong if they had no issues serving the couple, but refused to use that design?
Click to expand...

Technically no, but I don't think that is the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom