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

And that is something I think should be allowed.

Shouldn't a baker, printer, t-shirt maker etc.. be able to decide which political messages they're going to support and object/refuse business from those they don't support.

Not if doing so violates the UK anti-discrimination laws. The issue here is that making a "support gay marriage" emblem does not violate the rights of the baker/t-shirt maker/printer. Refusing to provide a service to one demographic while happily providing that service to others is discrimination.

Ashers are happy to make wedding cakes, just not ones with the word gay on them. The courts decided (rightfully) that doing so was a direct discrimination against the gay community.
 
Last edited:
Not if doing so violates the UK anti-discrimination laws. The issue here is that making a "support gay marriage" emblem does not violate the rights of the baker/t-shirt maker/printer. Refusing to provide a service to one demographic while happily providing that service to others is discrimination.

Ashers are happy to make wedding cakes, just not ones with the word gay on them. The courts decided (rightfully) that doing so was a direct discrimination against the gay community.

So you'd agree with the hypothetical example presented above? Including the mohammed picture?

also 'Refusing to provide a service to one demographic while happily providing that service to others is discrimination.' they're not refusing to provide a service in a general sense to that demographic - it is the political message they're opposed to
 
Well they could have a sign saying that they don't promote political views, it is not unheard of to have something state what your business doesn't allow... Plus was it really they didn't want to promote that, because it was a political view or it promoted accepting gays? BTW, I don't think Jesus taught hate, so all these people that hate others have no right to call themselves Christian...

I don't even remember writing that. Clearly I've become nicer in 2 years :D.

It was pretty **** reasoning on my behalf there :D.
 
It certainly seems like he does.

Then you're not understanding that your responsibility is to follow God, not question God.

He knows better than you what is right and wrong.

Being heterosexual. Only have sex with your spouse.

You are making it sound like this is the only thing we are called on to do. As if avoiding sin is not difficult for everyone. If that were the case we would see lots of people who were perfect and free of sin. But everyone is sinful. Because avoiding sin is hard -- for everyone.

The difference with open, proud homosexuals is they are unrepentant sinners. Being unrepentant makes it impossible for you to hear God, and thus to follow God. You are hurting yourself by doing this. But it is your choice, not anyone else's, and certainly not God's. He doesn't want you to be that way.

Being homosexual. Cannot have sex or have to have sex with someone you are not sexually attracted to.

Lots of men are attracted to women other than their wives. It is still sinful to indulge in this sinful desire. That includes jacking off to pornography, something many men seem to have problems avoiding. If they openly proclaim that pornography isn't a problem, and that they can look at pornography happily and unrepentently and still be a Christian, they are not following God, they are instead worshipping pornography, and so are not saved by Christ.

It's simple really. You can choose to follow God or reject him. It's your decision. Not God's. You can't blame him for your bad choice and the consequences of that bad choice.
 
no it didn't

the court ruled that the political message was an intrinsic part of their identity

it didn't state that the bakers refused to serve gay people in a general sense

From the summary of judgement on this case.

Was I correct as a matter of law to hold that the appellants had discriminated against the respondent directly on grounds of sexual orientation contrary to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2006 - Yes;

In short the judge concluded (in part), that Ashers bakery had discriminated against Gareth Lee directly on the grounds of his sexual orientation. So yes the courts do disagree with you.
 
Then you're not understanding that your responsibility is to follow God, not question God.

He knows better than you what is right and wrong.



You are making it sound like this is the only thing we are called on to do. As if avoiding sin is not difficult for everyone. If that were the case we would see lots of people who were perfect and free of sin. But everyone is sinful. Because avoiding sin is hard -- for everyone.

The difference with open, proud homosexuals is they are unrepentant sinners. Being unrepentant makes it impossible for you to hear God, and thus to follow God. You are hurting yourself by doing this. But it is your choice, not anyone else's, and certainly not God's. He doesn't want you to be that way.



Lots of men are attracted to women other than their wives. It is still sinful to indulge in this sinful desire. That includes jacking off to pornography, something many men seem to have problems avoiding. If they openly proclaim that pornography isn't a problem, and that they can look at pornography happily and unrepentently and still be a Christian, they are not following God, they are instead worshipping pornography, and so are not saved by Christ.

It's simple really. You can choose to follow God or reject him. It's your decision. Not God's. You can't blame him for your bad choice and the consequences of that bad choice.

Oh dear, what a load of horse manure.
 
Yes it did. You're trying to argue that homosexuals are not responsible for their own sins. That God is responsible instead. This is false. God wants us to make the right moral choices and to follow His teachings. This means not giving into sinful desires but instead resisting them. Sometimes we fail in this endeavour. Even "the best" Christians.

We all have sinful desires. It's our responsibility to try to resist them. The problem homosexuals have -- at least the open, proud ones that are trying to claim that it is a moral lifestyle choice -- is that not only are they sinning, they are unrepentant and are in fact espousing immoral opinions and advocating immoral actions. This is incompatible with being a Christian.

Your idea of cause and effect is flawed, it is not coherent with your stance.

Speaking from a viewpoint that God even exists, then he must be responsible for every sin ever. The fact that homosexuality is even a potentiality of life on earth surely boils down to God, that's before you even consider what has been defined as sin.

If you really think god made humanity capable of being homosexual just to create some people who are more or less destined for hell then that sounds more like pure evil. How can people honestly believe this and worship at the same time?
 
Last edited:
Your idea of cause and effect is flawed, it is not coherent with your stance.

Speaking from a viewpoint that God even exists, then he must be responsible for every sin ever. The fact that homosexuality is even a potentiality of life on earth surely boils down to God, that's before you even consider what has been defined as sin.

If you really think god made humanity capable of being homosexual just to create some people who are more or less destined for hell then that sounds more like something Satan would do.

Pretty much this.

God is all powerful, all knowing. He has known since the creation of time itself who will and won't sin. Not just that, but he created those people knowing their fate.

Our lives on earth are actually moot. While we don't know what we will do with or life, God does, so it's set in stone, there is no free will, only an illusion.

The sick part of all this is God created countless millions (so far) of souls, who are then forced to sin, cause others to suffer and are then destined for an eternity in Hell as punishment for committing the sins they had no choice but to give in to.
 
Last edited:
It's simple really. You can choose to follow God or reject him. It's your decision. Not God's. You can't blame him for your bad choice and the consequences of that bad choice.

Well that's my parade well and truly peed all over.

Ah well, I'll get back to the beer, blow and hookers and hope for forgiveness in the worst case scenario. :p
 
Pretty much this.

God is all powerful, all knowing. He has known since the creation of time itself who will and won't sin. Not just that, but he created those people knowing their fate.

Our lives on earth are actually moot. While we don't know what we will do with or life, God does, so it's set in stone, there is no free will, only an illusion.

The sick part of all this is God created countless millions (so far) of souls, who are then forced to sin, cause others to suffer and are then destined for an eternity in Hell as punishment for committing the sins they had no choice but to give in to.

Don't forget he created the devil... Knowing he would be evil and be against gods teachings. So the logical thing that Satan does is punish the people that go against God...... Wait what???
 
It's simple really. You can choose to follow God or reject him. It's your decision. Not God's. You can't blame him for your bad choice and the consequences of that bad choice.

Then who's decision was it to even make it a choice???

Your cause and effect is all over the place.

It was God's decision to even make non-belief one of the choices! And he has done absolutely nothing to even entice anyone except sending some magicians down 2000 years ago while making himself appear as if he is some pure evil psychopathic killer I really wouldn't want to spend time with outside of a controlled psychiatric evaluation. :D
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom