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

There is every reason to do so when it comes to creating something. It's a basic freedom of speech/freedom of expression issue.

Its a political argument whether you're so sure you're on the right side of it or not. There are uneven numbers of men and women therefore I propose that all marriage creates inequality... I'm anti marriage on the basis of equality... or at least I could be if I chose to have that view... it's as valid as anyone else's view as it's just that, a view....
No, not all views are equal.

Person A wants all to be able to marry if they so desire - this is a 'internal view', based around the notion that an individual has the right to do as they please in a way which doesn't negatively impact on another humans life.

Person B wants nobody to be able to marry - this is an 'external view', based around the notion that an individual has the right to deny another persons right to do as they please in a way which does not negatively impact on another humans life.

People who wish to allow gay marriage fall into category A, as they are not trying to force people in category B (or anybody else for that matter) to do anything at all.

You have the right to do what you want (assuming no harm is caused) - you do not have the right to tell others what to do (assuming no harm is caused).

This is not a complicated concept to understand & accept, it's also an integral part of a civilised society.
 
Last edited:
Back to insults as you can't prove your assertions. I'm still waiting Mart.

You said minorities should work harder to be more appealing than white males, then you said:

They could

  • work harder
  • be more polite
  • commit to their role better
  • be more punctual

Which means you think they aren't equally committed to their job as white males.

Instead of being argumentative, why not have a backbone and stick up for the things you write.

Either way I'm done, tired of going round in circles.
 
Last edited:
No you're not... or at least shouldn't be

The law may very well disagree with you. The Equality Commission certainly thinks it does.

- that's the whole distinction that will have to be made here - it's the customer that's protected from discrimination not the individual products... you're not forced to support something just because a customer wants you to. A baker isn't obliged to go ahead any more than a newspaper is obliged to compromise his editorial stance and allow an advert that goes against it.

Sometimes the only way a customer could be protected from discrimination is if the individual product is.
e.g.
"I am not going to make a mixed wedding cake because I disagree with mixed marriage, but feel free to buy a wedding cake with a non mixed couple on it."
 
You said minorities should work harder to be more appealing than white males,

I never said that, you're making it up

then you said:

They could

work harder
be more polite
commit to their role better
be more punctual

Which means you think they aren't equally committed to their job as white males.

No it doesn't. That was in response to your question "How do minorities become "more appealing" when people like you and anything I don't mind exist. "

STILL waiting for you to prove I said these things. Can you do it? Just answer once and for all please as they are pretty strong accusations...

- The only vision I have of a lazy black male is one you gave to me
- you said minorities should try harder
- only hired to fit a quota
- they are lazy, impolite and poor time keepers
 
No, not all views are equal.

Person A wants all to be able to marry if they so desire - this is a 'internal view', based around the notion that an individual has the right to do as they please in a way which doesn't negatively impact on another humans life.

Person B wants nobody to be able to marry - this is an 'external view', based around the notion that an individual has the right to deny another persons right to do as they please in a way which does not negatively impact on another humans life.

People who wish to allow gay marriage fall into category A, as they are not trying to force people in category B (or anybody else for that matter) to do anything at all.

You have the right to do what you want (assuming no harm is caused) - you do not have the right to tell others what to do (assuming no harm is caused).

This is not a complicated concept to understand & accept, it's also an integral part of a civilised society.

This is made on the blind assertion that gay marriage does not have a negative impact upon society. But that is not something you can prove, it's just a claim.

The facts are that neither side of the debate can provide an evidence backed argument, as it's to soon to make any meaningful measure of the impact of same sex marriage. But until there is evidence, your statement has no more veracity than the other sides.
 
I never said that, you're making it up



No it doesn't. That was in response to your question "How do minorities become "more appealing" when people like you and anything I don't mind exist. "

STILL waiting for you to prove I said these things. Can you do it? Just answer once and for all please as they are pretty strong accusations...

- The only vision I have of a lazy black male is one you gave to me
- you said minorities should try harder
- only hired to fit a quota
- they are lazy, impolite and poor time keepers
Crap, just re-read it properly and you are right. You said white males should become more appealing. I thought you said minorities should become more appealing than white males.

I apologise and to the mods for stirring up crap for past few pages because of it.
 
This is made on the blind assertion that gay marriage does not have a negative impact upon society. But that is not something you can prove, it's just a claim.

The facts are that neither side of the debate can provide an evidence backed argument, as it's to soon to make any meaningful measure of the impact of same sex marriage. But until there is evidence, your statement has no more veracity than the other sides.

If there is no evidence of a negative impact then why restrict it?
 
This is made on the blind assertion that gay marriage does not have a negative impact upon society. But that is not something you can prove, it's just a claim.

The facts are that neither side of the debate can provide an evidence backed argument, as it's to soon to make any meaningful measure of the impact of same sex marriage. But until there is evidence, your statement has no more veracity than the other sides.

Why would it have any more of a negative impact on society versus "regular" marriage? :confused:
 
Why would you want to restrict the rights of people when there is no evidence of harm? Shouldn't the default position be "Not restricting rights unless there is harm" if not, why not?

I don't even think that's valid, as there are many things that harm on a societal level that aren't restricted (for example alcohol and the excess culture we have towards it in the UK).
 
And the rate of divorce doesn't?

I don't think the concept of divorce does, no. I do think modern divorce laws make a mockery of marriage, yes.

Why would you want to restrict the rights of people when there is no evidence of harm? Shouldn't the default position be "Not restricting rights unless there is harm" if not, why not?

I've already said; deduction. I and many others have deduced that marriage will have a negative impact on society. We cannot prove it, because as I've said, it's too soon to analyse.

Obviously other people oppose it for moral or religious reasons, so I cannot speak for them.

I don't even think that's valid, as there are many things that harm on a societal level that aren't restricted (for example alcohol and the excess culture we have towards it in the UK).

You're absolutely right, there are far worse things than gay marriage. But just because the house is on fire, doesn't mean it's okay to flood the basement.

Because conservative people encourage the restriction of others.

Oh yes absolutely, we're the ones restricting the rights of these bakers. As David Starkey said, we've tyranny by the liberals these days.
 
Last edited:
Why would you want to restrict the rights of people when there is no evidence of harm? Shouldn't the default position be "Not restricting rights unless there is harm" if not, why not?


Exactly. This is how we should legislate for everything.

I don't even think that's valid, as there are many things that harm on a societal level that aren't restricted (for example alcohol and the excess culture we have towards it in the UK).

Most people use alcohol responsibly. Why should the minority who abuse alcohol get to dictate to the majority who do not ?
 
I don't think the concept of divorce does, no. I do think modern divorce laws make a mockery of marriage, yes.



I've already said; deduction. I and many others have deduced that marriage will have a negative impact on society. We cannot prove it, because as I've said, it's too soon to analyse.

Obviously other people oppose it for moral or religious reasons, so I cannot speak for them.

A mockery because people are allowed to divorce if they want to?
 
You have the right to do what you want (assuming no harm is caused) - you do not have the right to tell others what to do (assuming no harm is caused).

This is not a complicated concept to understand & accept, it's also an integral part of a civilised society.

That's exactly my point - you're protected from discrimination in that they can't refuse to sell you something based on who you are. You don't however have the right to tell them what to do... if they don't want to make a cake supporting your campaign then they've got a right to not do so. You can't force people to support your views... creative people have some discretion over what they'll create/put their name too.
 
A business transaction isn't the same as supporting a political campaign. A bus driver taking fifteen Conservative supporters to an event isn't supporting the Conservative party - there is no reason to bring in personal beliefs into a standard business transaction.

Interesting that you mention bus drivers..Bus driver are acting servants of The Company, they have no option but to follow the rules and regulations set out by The Company...it would be The Officers of The Company which set those rules and they do retain the right to accept or refuse a contract as they see fit within the law...When I was an Operations Director for a commercial public transport company we had very defined parameters for what was acceptable to advertise on our vehicles for example, the basic conditions were (words to the effect of) that the company would not condone, support, endorse or be seen to support, condone or endorse any policy or be associated with the aforementioned, or make commitment or endorsement of an illegal act or an act or product that might be seen to be controversial or immoral either directly or by association.

This meant that various requests for hoarding advertising on our fleet were turned down, including ones from Political and Pressure Groups. Some where accepted and then removed at a later time when it became clear that the image, message or subject matter was politically or morally controversial. There was no discrimination in this as it was a blanket policy.

Just because it is a business transaction doesn't mean that you must accept that transaction, particularly if the transaction would mean compromising the ethos and/or business of the company involved.

As long as what's being requested doesn't break the law, refusing on discriminatory grounds (which can include politics, sexuality or race) is not something the law in this case allows.

Same Sex Marriage in Northern Ireland is currently illegal, it is not unreasonable to assume that creating a cake that says "Support Gay Marriage" could be construed as endorsing or condoning an illegal act...whether that act is moral or immoral or whether the act itself is part of an ongoing legal challenge or not is not the point, the Company did not refuse to serve anyone because of their sexuality, religion or gender..they simply refused to produce a product that condoned an action that was not in keeping with the ethos of the Company as defined by The Officers of the Company and is currently illegal in the region in which they trade.

They offer a service making cakes, the second they start a business up for trading they agree to our collective rules & legislation - if they are unable to abide by these rules they should perhaps reconsider if the world of business is for them.

Indeed, and currently there is no law that requires a company to support or condone Same Sex Marriage in Northern Ireland. If they were asked to bake a cake for a Civil Ceremony and they refused that that would be discriminatory, if Gay marriage was legal in Northern Ireland and they refused to bake a Wedding cake because it was for a Same-Sex Marriage then that too would be discriminatory..however the big hiccup here is that unlike the rest of the UK, Same Sex Marriage is not legal in Northern Ireland and therein defines the right of the Company to not endorse or be seen by association to endorse an act that remains illegal in the region in which they trade.

I simply disagree that baking a cake is an action of support to a political view

You are quite right, baking a cake doesn't...but the slogan being asked to be put on that cake does, simply by association it can construed that the company supports Same Sex Marriage...whether it does or not is immaterial.

(I also don't agree that equality is a political argument to begin with) they may not share. They are free to not support equal rights for gay marriage, their business on the other hand is not.

Their business is free to not support a change in the law by association...this means that they can refuse a contract on the basis that the contract may prejudice their business or may associate their business with the acceptance and endorsement of whatever they are being asked to create a product to support.

No business should be forced to support any change in the current law, even by association, unless they want to. Again, Same Sex Marriage is illegal in Northern Ireland and until that changes they should be free to not associate their business with Same Sex Marriage.

To be clear to everyone ( I realise Elmarko probably knows this), Personally I fully support the position that Marriage should be available to all, no restriction should be placed on a consenting couple (or even more in my opinion) who freely wish to express themselves and their commitment to each other through marriage. I also support the position that Civil Partnerships should be freely available to all in the same way. the only restriction I would place on these is the requirement of Consent of all parties who wish to make such a commitment, and their right to withdraw that Consent at any time without prejudice or punishment.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom