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

Semple said:
I suspect this was more of a set up than anything. The guy who ordered the cake surely knew the bakery was going to refuse to make it, so rather than take his business elsewhere, he decides to stir the pot and have an example made out of them.
Click to expand...

robgmun said:
Right on all counts, it definitely seems like the gay guy with out to make an example of someone and they're the first ones to fall for it. He was a typical gay noisemaker that wanted to stir trouble, i've met many in the past and they're insufferable *****.

The shop should have been wise to the fact and danced around the excuse
Click to expand...

So you have both decided this was an elaborate setup by the person who ordered the cake? Why not read some of the statements from the person who ordered the cake in the first place.

Gareth Lee stated he was a regular customer who had ordered the cake after seeing an advertising leaflet in the shop for its custom-made baking service. The leaflet made no reference to any restrictions on the type of cakes available.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32063006

I am from Northern Ireland and have used Ashers bakery plenty of times. There is absolutely nothing indicating they are a religious owned establishment. Someone walking in off the street to purchase a custom cake may just (and I know this is controversial) be looking for a custom cake?

It's funny that you both advocate that Christians tell deliberate lies so they can actively discriminate. Yet you both morally judge the gay guy for "most likely" telling lies to catch out the poor shop owners who are innocent victims to those conniving gays.

Ironic in the extreme.
 
Last edited:
ColdAsIce said:
Well this is why I find the court ruling strange.
Click to expand...

I quoted the relevant part from the case summary that clearly shows their findings were that this was a clear case of discrimination based on sexual orientation. It went through an appeal and the findings are still the same and no longer under debate.
 
Tosno said:
I know... it's almost as bad as the RACIST! defence.

On a serious note: Where do you draw the line of your progressive EQUAL society? I mean for example if we pick a matter that the majority of religious and non religious people in 2016 find disgusting *incest* if it were to get good PR and we are told love is love, it's up to what two consenting adults do ect... should the Christian bakers make a make incest legal cake and not refuse service based on their prejudices or outdated sense of morals?
Click to expand...

You are bringing up irrelevant hypothetical scenarios that bear no meaning to current equal rights laws.
 
ICDP said:
You are bringing up irrelevant hypothetical scenarios that bear no meaning to current equal rights laws.
Click to expand...

Well I think that is a more poor defence than political correctness gone mad. I can see from your posts, you are a big fan of EQUAL society. I want to know where YOU draw the line. The first half of the last century the majority of people considered homosexuality disgusting, just as the majority of people so far this century find incest disgusting, but many of the same arguments for it apply, love is love after all.

As you said in a previous post:

Should African American's have adopted the same attitude during the segregation era in the USA?

Should women have adopted the same attitude during the suffragette movement?

Should Catholics not have fought for one man one vote during the beginning of the civil rights era in Northern Ireland?

History has taught us repeatedly that change and acceptance of rights, does not happen if the subjugated remain silent and accept their "place in society".
Click to expand...

Should those wanting incest weddings remain silent and accept their "place in society"?

Should the Christian bakers make a make incest legal cake and not refuse service based on their prejudices or outdated sense of morals?
 
Did they actually state they would not do this because of the slogan?

Surely it is up to the business owner to pick and choose which orders they do for whatever reason they see fit?

For example, if someone comes to me wanting a crane and I can't fit in the time to manufacture then I just refuse the order.. does the same not apply here regardless of sexual orientation.

I understand if they actually stated that they refuse to do it because the slogan supports gay rights.. but even then is it not their opinion.. plus how the **** does it equal discrimination?

Am I missing something here?

All of the above is common sense... isn't it???
 
Honestly this is very much like the Manager or Doorman from a Wetherspoons that got taken to court because he refused to serve some gypsies.

Most bar/club establishments can refuse entry without even giving a reason. Just ask anyone that has worked the doors for a club. His mistake was actually acknowledging he is prejudiced against Gypsies.

Very much like this case, if the couple had just refused the order without a reason, then this would never have made it to court.
 
Chandler_90 said:
Did they actually state they would not do this because of the slogan?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Surely it is up to the business owner to pick and choose which orders they do for whatever reason they see fit?
Click to expand...
Of course they can, as long as they don't discriminate.

For example, if someone comes to me wanting a crane and I can't fit in the time to manufacture then I just refuse the order.. does the same not apply here regardless of sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are talking about? Is crane some kind of euphemism for something?
The baker did not refuse to make the cake due to time constraints but because they are homophobic morons.

I understand if they actually stated that they refuse to do it because the slogan supports gay rights.
Click to expand...
Now you understand.

. but even then is it not their opinion.. plus how the **** does it equal discrimination?
Click to expand...
Look at the court case to find out why.

Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...
Quite a lot it would appear.
All of the above is common sense... isn't it???[/QUOTE]
 
To be fair all this equality nonsense has got out of hand.

Correct we shouldnt discriminate because of skin colour, religious believes, sex or sexuality etc etc but whats wrong with say me, refusing to do business with somebody because I think they are a monumental jerk?

Is that ok???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom