Soldato
Almost 3000 posts about a gay wedding cake.
Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
One thing that is happening a lot more, not just this also things like the destroying of statues, is the forcing of people's opinions on others in one way or another, whether the opinion is right or wrong or you don't agree with it forcing others to accept it it then saying they are in the wrong, racist, bigoted, discriminating, because they don't agree, that's what I have issues with.
Soldato
From what I saw in the story it wasn't about being gay. A straight person could have got in to this situation if he asked for the slogan "Support Gay Marriage" to be written on a cake.
This case differs from the examples you mentioned as the product was regularly sold in the shop. The cake wasn't the problem. It was the slogan.
I think the guy as tried to make it a gay persecution issue to get the anti-discrimination laws in action, when the fact is if 'straight' Bob went in to the shop and asked for the same cake with that same slogan written on he'd get the same outcome.
Haha I can't believe this is still going on 7 years later. Who cares.
Yep this is definitely happening. It's what oppression looks like in the 2020s. "Agree with X or you're somehow a full on Nazi".
Yep this is definitely happening. It's what oppression looks like in the 2020s. "Agree with X or you're somehow a full on Nazi".
Soldato
Or unintelligent 
The crutch of the person that cannot rationally argue a point is to call people with differing views unintelligent rather than trying to properly understand the other's views (however abhorrent they think it is) and then, if they still disagree, either walk away or argue against it properly.
They'd rather bring emotionally charged language into it in an attempt to bolster their point and/or garner support from others
The crutch of the person that cannot rationally argue a point is to call people with differing views unintelligent rather than trying to properly understand the other's views (however abhorrent they think it is) and then, if they still disagree, either walk away or argue against it properly.
They'd rather bring emotionally charged language into it in an attempt to bolster their point and/or garner support from others
Last edited:
Soldato
The newspapers quoted
So I don't see how these beliefs differ from any of the beliefs I've previously quoted?
Almost 3000 posts about a gay wedding cake.
* 3000 posts about a case where the very important matter of compelled speech= actions was the issue.
The implication for this ruling isn't about lgbtq+ people it about compelled speech.
A business can't refuse a service based on a protected charteristic.
But they can refuse to provide a particular service they would refuse to all groups.
A nuance apparenlty beyond a lot of people...
Soldato
Mate if you want to give up your free time to debate protected characteristics then all the power to you.
Don't take everything you read so seriously.
Almost 3000 posts about a gay wedding cake.
To be fair, this has dragged on for nearly 10 years. This really should have been sorted a long time ago.
Caporegime
The irony being the cake now identifies as a fry up….Almost 3000 posts about a gay wedding cake.
Tbh, I wouldn’t be surprised if such a twist happened!
Soldato
I picked it up because in the examples used you mentioned a Muslim selling a pork item, and a vegan selling meat, both items those types of businesses wouldn't be selling. Whereas the Bakers shop regularly sells cakes.
I'm being a bit pedantic. But only because the guy as presented the case to make it seem like he was discriminated against for being gay.
I'm certain the issue of muslims selling pork and vegans selling meat has been brought up in shop and supply settings.
A quick look says yes, there have been many instances where this has been brought up. Typically a muslim taking a low grade position and becoming concerned by a religious conflict they have.
However there seems to be a lot of grey about how many degrees of separation you need to be from a piece of pork before it is forbidden. Or alcohol. Consuming is obviously forbidden but moving packed product across a warehouse as an employee?
Soldato
Caporegime
Pretty much. You cannot be accepting of something but not agree with it because you just get lambasted.
Soldato
Ahh yes, I seem to remember that case a few years ago. There were also similar situation when it came to Muslims selling alcohol.
I was just saying that they didn't sell him the cake because he was gay, which is what he was saying. He claimed by them refusing to put that message on the cake, and it being assumed that a gay man would support gay marriage, then it was tantamount to the Baker discriminating against him because he's gay. The case was eventually thrown out because that wasn't what happened.
I think that's a bad comparison - if someone wishes to run a vegan restaurant say they're not obliged to stock meat, nor is a Muslim butcher obliged to sell pork etc...
In this case the baker does sell cakes, in particular, they take commissions for customisable cakes, a good comparison would be someone else who takes commissions turning down work which they find objectionable too - for example a Muslim baker refusing a Jesus and Mo cake for an atheist, he's not refusing someone on the basis of their religion (or lack of it) but rather because he objects to the thing being requested - the atheist can still order a cake from him, just not one like that.
Didn't realise fairy cakes were so popular?Almost 3000 posts about a gay wedding cake.
Soldato
Yeap, sadly it's just how modern life has turned where previously people could at least debate things whereas now the reaction seems to be that if someone disagrees with you then they must be destroyed in every way possible - I find that it's a very child-like reaction of "you're either with us or against us - it's black or white, nothing else is allowed" to what are sometimes complex situations which might have some shades of grey instead.
Soldato
I didn't illustrate the example I was referring to completely due to generalising about it. Thanks.
I have since elaborated on it refering to the Muslim guy working in the butcher's refusing to serve and handle pork on religious grounds to customers that consume it.
Apparently that was acceptable, without either issue or complaint. The owners of the bakery maintained the provision of the cake with the signage supporting gay marriages, ran counter to their religious beliefs /sensibilities. I don't see any material difference since both arguments are still centred around religious beliefs ?
Last edited:
Caporegime
In my old place a good few years ago I used to manage around wraps production. Whenever chicken and Bacon was on the line the Muslims and vegetarians were moved onto a different line. Not really any problem.