They disagreed on an element of homosexuality. You're clutching at straws.
Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
They disagreed on an element of homosexuality. You're clutching at straws.
It doesn't really matter, to try and force someone via litigation to not have different views to you is wrong, or to try and punish them via litigation for having views you don't like is also wrong.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,810
- Location
- Inverness,
lol on ashers just lol
If this was a person on the street, I would agree. But no, this is a chain of bakeries that are refusing service based on the fact they don't like what is written on the cake. Why do they offer a service if they're not willing to honour it for certain customers and/or their requests?
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2011
- Posts
- 1,488
- Location
- Nottingham
Maybe a better comparison, would be "The gay lifestyle is wrong" Many people would refuse to make something supporting that, but it's not due to the lifestyle of the other person, merely their view on a subject.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,893
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 4,473
- Location
- South West
PROBABLY? There are some hugely intolerant people in this world, not always down to religion but often cultural issues or stemming from a particular historical event.
I’m not saying there aren’t Christians that are intolerant but no more than anyone else, a person of a faith or not. Intolerance isn’t exclusive to religion, far from it.
The point I have been making all along is that the act of homosexuality was deemed illegal at one point, this aligned with biblical Christianity but the law changed in 1967 but the bible hasn't (and won’t)... there is a conflict there (some may call it cultural) but ultimately the law of the land has to play 2nd fiddle to the believer, BUT the bible teaches about how to deal with conflict and disagreement and it must always be in love... again just because someone doesn't agree with a lifestyle choice or any other choice doesn't mean there is hatred or intolerance involved.
The hilarious thing about people arguing the basis of 'religion' to justify deplorable actions is that no one can actually agree on the interpretations of the various iterations of the bible. So even if religious reasons were to stand up in court, where would we find, explicitly that "gays are wrong"?
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,373
- Location
- Darwen
Wat?
Homosexuality is no longer illegal, not sure why you keep bringing it up.
The law is the law, it shouldn't play second fiddle to anything let alone a book that has been translated from language to language over thousands of years, imagine a game of chinese whispers and how the message gets twisted and distorted the more people who pass the message on.
They are free to disagree all they want it doesn't mean they can't still serve the people, they wont go to hell for writing "Queer" on a cake.
This is intolerance pure and simple, they are hiding behind religion to justify their intolerance towards gays and knowing that is against the law they are using the old religious freedom nonsense to try and not get sued.
They aren't being punished for holding different views. You can still hold whatever views you like. What you cannot do is use those beliefs to discriminate against customers based on religion, gender, race or sexuality if you run a business. So if you are a BNP baker you can't refuse to make a cake with a black groom and a white bride because of you beliefs around mixed race marriages.
Of course if you are going to make a fuss about your Christian beliefs you probably shouldn't open on a Sunday as it makes you look a little hypocritical.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,373
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
The usual nuttiness being passed off as tolerance on this thread.
A. Eddie Izzard isn't funny either, but he is a transvestite. The T in LGBT is transvestite.
B. They refused on the content because it was about homosexuality then tried to claim their religion gives them the right to act in that manner
1 - It's discrimination, their religion is nonexistent tosh. I can believe in anything - it doesn't make their actions any better.1 - You have completely missed the point and your black people comparison is stupid.
2 - Can you provide a source to the 'quoted' Christianity passage? Pretty sure you have just completely made that up....
3 - Not everyone that is married (the rest of humanity??) is miserable. Once again....the baker’s didn’t refuse to serve them because they are gay......they just didn’t agree with the message/ image that they were being asked to put on the cake.....
2 - Deuteronomy 13:7-17 and a couple of wedges of exodus (can't remember which bits exactly). You should read the bible one day, it's in interesting read.
3 - I was embellishing for dramatic effect. They disagreed with the message because it was a gay message - that's homophobic in itself. They then tried to act as if their religion excuses them. It may explain their actions, it does not excuse them.
I think his point was that it was illegal DUE to the bible, and that legality and illegality are not synonyms for right, wrong, moral or immoral.
It stands for transgender and as a supposed supporter of gay/LGBT rights I find the fact you don't know this hilarious.
So do you just hate religion and are using this as an excuse to bash it without actually caring about gay people or what? I would imagine if you cared you would know what the acronyms mean.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Liberty starts and stops wherever the cosmopolitans decide.
To be fair the bible isn't a brilliant place to work out if something is right, wrong, moral or immoral either. Telling you to be nice to slaves is still condoning slavery for example.
This, especially when Transvestites often do it for a laugh, as seemingly Eddie Izard does.
You honestly mean to tell me you think those things are a declaration of a persons sexuality? Ie, "Everybody, I'm straight. Straight Power!"
Well you'd be wrong. Those things are a consequence of their sexuality, and the primary factor is a *specific* attraction to an individual. Ie, "Phwoar, isn't Lucy from accounting hot?"
How many times have you heard a straight guy say "Phwoar, aren't women hot? I like women. I'm straight." It would be absurd.
And if a guy came to to me and said "Isn't so-and-so (male) hot," I'd think for a second, and then answer the question. I'm quite comfortable with that. I wouldn't want to evaluate his **** or anything, and would be a bit freaked out if this discussion was occurring in a changing room or toilet, but otherwise it wouldn't offend me.
What annoys me is bringing sexuality into a situation where it has no relevance or purpose. Like putting gay slogans on literally everything.
You know in the cake case, it was probably the "Queerspace" slogan that made the difference between having the cake and not having it. Two grooms would have been much more subtle and probably been OK. But they had to take it a step further, and make the cake political.
Surely it is their right to refuse certain requests. Like having a message in frosting consisting of nothing but expletives for example.