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

Destination · 27 Oct 2016 at 19:49

jpod said:
They would not refuse the request of a Catholic priest.

ohhh, I think you'll find they would, whole different branch of Christianity at work here

Haggisman · 27 Oct 2016 at 19:53

dowie said:
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

They're also explicitly linked with the EDL:

"No sorry, we don't make EDL cakes" = fine

"No sorry, we don't make gay cakes" = not fine.

Whether it's the EDL's gay, black, disabled, Muslim, whatever wing is irrelevant; if they are refusing purely based on the political stance then any other factors can be ignored.

Sliver · 27 Oct 2016 at 19:54

jpod said:
They would not refuse the request of a Catholic priest.

Many alter boys have tried and failed. They are now in therapy.

Hey jpod.

Head over to Speakers Corner, I have a thread there I'd be interested to hear your views on.

koolpc · 27 Oct 2016 at 19:56

In all probability, gay bakers would bend over backwards to make the cake of your dreams!

Dis86 · 27 Oct 2016 at 20:00

vincent1989 said:
No, because it's illegal, duh

No it's not.

dowie · 27 Oct 2016 at 20:02

Haggisman said:
They're also explicitly linked with the EDL:

"No sorry, we don't make EDL cakes" = fine

"No sorry, we don't make gay cakes" = not fine.

Whether it's the EDL's gay, black, disabled, Muslim, whatever wing is irrelevant; if they are refusing purely based on the political stance then any other factors can be ignored.

the bakers were refusing based on the political stance/message! The political stance in this instance was a campaign to legalise gay marriage

the political stance in my hypothetical is an an anti homophobia in Islam campaign

you mean to say if they're refusing purely based on the political group, however that is untested and it seems you're likely to fall foul of the same judgement in that the group is inextricably linked to sexuality, race whatever - whether that be black lives matter, the EDL's gay wing etc..

if you can say that a message/campaign is directly linked to sexuality then you can say the same of a group

you can of course turn down the EDL themselves in a more general case

John40 · 27 Oct 2016 at 20:09

A paedophile has not broken any laws until he acts on it, having the thoughts is totally legal.

D.P. · 27 Oct 2016 at 20:12

dowie said:
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

Are you being purposely obtuse? The baker could refuse based on the political aspect, not the homosexuality aspect. Political beliefs are not protected.

RDM · 27 Oct 2016 at 20:19

dowie said:
neither are legal

gay marriage is illegal in NI, the cake was part of a campaign to change the law

Gay marriage isn't illegal in NI. No crime is committed if you perform a gay marriage. It just isn't recognised.

Sliver · 27 Oct 2016 at 20:20

John40 said:
A paedophile has not broken any laws until he acts on it, having the thoughts is totally legal.

Well until we have the thought police a.k.a. religion, that's never going to change. Paedophiles interestingly fall into two category's though. Predatory and masturbatory. Predatory paedophiles commit actual physical crimes against children. Masturbatory paedophiles just fap to child pron on the internet, which is in essence a thought crime that we punish them for. Why? Because by doing this they create a demand for more child abuse pics/vids to be produced. So I guess we do already punish thought crimes regardless of religion.

vincent1989 · 27 Oct 2016 at 20:25

Dis86 said:
No it's not.

Paedophilia isn't illegal?!

Dis86 · 27 Oct 2016 at 20:26

vincent1989 said:
Paedophilia isn't illegal?!

Nope. There are crimes associated with it but it in itself isn't.

vincent1989 · 27 Oct 2016 at 20:27

Dis86 said:
Nope. There are crimes associated with it but it in itself isn't.

Oh like being a racist or a homophobe or a homosexual (until not that long ago?)

Tosno · 27 Oct 2016 at 20:29

Uncle dowie look what you have done to this thread! You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off with incest as everyone was shy and sheepish around that, because the same arguments apply, but now you blow up the whole thread with PAEDOPHILLA! :mad:

dowie · 27 Oct 2016 at 20:29

D.P. said:
Are you being purposely obtuse? The baker could refuse based on the political aspect, not the homosexuality aspect. Political beliefs are not protected.

they are when associated with sexuality

that was the whole basis for this case

they didn't refuse custom because the customers were gay they refused based on the political belief/message on the cake - the campaign to legalise gay marriage in NI where it currently isn't legal

dowie · 27 Oct 2016 at 20:31

RDM said:
Gay marriage isn't illegal in NI. No crime is committed if you perform a gay marriage. It just isn't recognised.

it isn't legal, it is illegal

Woden · 27 Oct 2016 at 20:31

vincent1989 said:
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?

It's purely an attempt at demonising homosexuality by comparing it to paedophilia (but not really comparing). Pretending it isn't is insulting to everyone in this debate.

Two gay men are consenting adults harming no one. A pedophilic "relationship" is not.

dowie · 27 Oct 2016 at 20:34

no one is demonising homosexuality, get a grip...

Tosno · 27 Oct 2016 at 20:35

Woden said:
Two gay men are consenting adults harming no one. A pedophilic "relationship" is not.

That's right and two biological brothers harming no one, should the bakers make them a make incest marriage legal cake and not refuse due to their outdated morals? It's 2016!

vincent1989 · 27 Oct 2016 at 20:39

Woden said:
It's purely an attempt at demonising homosexuality by comparing it to paedophilia (but not really comparing). Pretending it isn't is insulting to everyone in this debate.

Two gay men are consenting adults harming no one. A pedophilic "relationship" is not.

Get real... it's not insulting anyone. At the same time as homosexuals were being murdered for their sexuality 13 year olds were able to give consent legally. You only think the way you do because of current societal norms. Your reaction is perhaps exactly the reaction some people my have had when the age of consent was changed...

A 13 year old and a 20 year old are consenting adults harming no one. A homosexual "relationship" is a sin!

Gay men could not consent, it wasn't that long ago that consensual gay sex with an under 18 year old would have been considered rape in the eyes of the law.