Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Soldato
Ahh, thread goes back to using paedos as a simile for homosexuality
And the answer is no.
Soldato
Why no? Love is love
Ahh, thread goes back to using paedos as a simile for homosexuality
And the answer is no.
No, there was no simile in my post. If you remember back to GCSE English class a simile is used for direct comparisons with a connecting word.
As for your actual reply, just stating 'the answer is no' isn't generally a very good response.
Back to the point - gay marriage is illegal in NI, gay groups want it legalised.
Some paedos might like a change in age of consent laws. Why are they not allowed to campaign for a change in the law too? Because more people are morally opposed to them whereas illegal gay marriage has more support for a change?
They would not refuse the request of a Catholic priest.
Your arguments are just pathetic now, surely you can do better than that?
And the answer is a fairly obvious no because pedophiles are not a protected group.
Soldato
This always happens when we discuss gay rights in GD. Sooner or later someone will bring in paedophilia into it.
Caporegime
Nor are those wishing to be married which is what the cake was asking for.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
It's not a completely inappropriate jump to make, both concern the private activities of consenting people, it's just that one is currently legal and the other is not. The age of consent in England was 12 for the best part of 600 years and now it's not. It's only within living memory that homosexual activity was completely illegal and at the same time the age of consent was 13 homosexuality was punishable by death.
Just as people's attitudes towards homosexuals having sex has changed (for the better) so has people's attitudes towards the age of consent. Why should it not change again? The legal age of consent varies all over the world, why should it be 16 any more than 14 or 18 even?
yet you didn't wish to tackle the previous example re: a gay group in the form of the EDL gay wing wanting a cake from a Muslim baker
you can say that the paedo one is fine as they're not protected... but you don't want to point out the more obvious objection that pedophiles are regarded as abhorrent individuals by our standards and most bakers would not want to print anything on a cake in support of them
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
Being gay was a crime within living memory. Being gay was punishable by death at a time the age of consent was 13. Laws change.
ehh, discrimination based on sexuality is illegal, so yes, gay people are protection from illegal discrimination. Which is why the baker lost the legal case.
Caporegime
Being a paedophile is a type of sexuality.
neither are legal
gay marriage is illegal in NI, the cake was part of a campaign to change the law
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
it had already been answered. The Baker could reject service due to their political affiliation, but not the message.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
Was making the point about specifically being gay, it's not irrelevant in any case.
yes but the objection is that you could attach plenty of political campaigns to gay rights, black rights etc..etc.. and now someone who might strongly object to it could be made to create a cake, flyer, poster etc.. supporting it
thus the EDL gay wing, muslim baker scenario
when you remove 'gay' from it then it is normal political stuff that can be turned down but as soon as you associated a political campaign with sexuality then that is apparently protected. That is flawed and wrong IMO.
really it isn't clear that they could have done that, the political group is as linked with homosexuality as the message is
that was the reason they were able to win this discrimination case, the link to a protected status
and in the case of the EDL gay wing, they're pretty explicitly linked with homosexuality too