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

[RDM]

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.

In what way? There doesn't seem to be any logical deduction going on with your statement.

 

[cheesyboy]

Deduction. The same process followed by those who approve of it.



It trivialises marriage.

And what is the harm to society of marriage being trivialised as a concept?
(I don't agree that it does anyway, to be clear)

 

[Tefal]

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.

how have you deduced that gay marriage will have a negative impact?


if it's via reasoned deduction you have come to this conclusion you should be able to easily and clearly lay out the thought process you used to come to the conclusion.

 

[spoffle]

Exactly. This how we should legislate for everything.



Most people use alcohol responsibly. Why should the minority who abuse alcohol get to dictate to the majority who do not ?

You've completely missed my point, though I don't think it is a minority that abuses alcohol, I think we have a very large number of functioning alcoholics in the UK, the UK public's views and attitudes to alcohol are really not good.

That aside, I wasn't calling for the legislation against alcohol, I'm pointing out that why should marriage be legislated against with regards to "societal harm" when there are other things that cause a lot of indisputable societal harm where people are given the freedom to partake in it as they please, or refrain from it completely?

 

[Sliver]

how have you deduced that gay marriage will have a negative impact?


if it's via reasoned deduction you have come to this conclusion you should be able to easily and clearly lay out the thought process you used to come to the conclusion.

Indeed. I eagerly await his reasoned deductive response.

 

[spoffle]

how have you deduced that gay marriage will have a negative impact?


if it's via reasoned deduction you have come to this conclusion you should be able to easily and clearly lay out the thought process you used to come to the conclusion.

We all know the response is going to be "Herp derp, but they bible, derp herpy derp de herpy derp tells me that is what my opinion is, de herpy de derp herp".

 

[elmarko]

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.

Are you suggesting in the absence of evidence we should deny one group equal rights?.

As I said before (a point which clearly went over your head) to prevent another another from doing as they please you need a good justification (evidence).

I'm not being offensive but that's one of the dumbest posts I've read on here for some time.

 

[Sliver]

I'm not being offensive but that's one of the dumbest posts I've read on here for some time.

Get used to it elmarko, he's makes posts like this all the time.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

A mockery because people are allowed to divorce if they want to?

Not because they are allowed to divorce, because as I implied above, I don't disapprove of the concept of divorce. The issue is how casually marriages can be both begun and ended. There is no social value in this.

given straight marriage has a 60% divorce rate I'd say the heteros trivialized it a long time ago.

I agree, but as I want to see the institution restored, you might appreciate why I don't want to trivialise it further.

And what is the harm to society of marriage being trivialised as a concept? (I don't agree that it does anyway, to be clear)

That is a question I couldn't do justice to in a short forum post. However in short, it reduces the value of familial bonds, which are the linchpin of civilized society.

 

[Sliver]

The issue is how casually marriages can be both begun and ended. There is no social value in this.

So people who are in a toxic loveless marriage, maybe even abusive, should in your opinion stay married because YOU think marriage should be for life ? Get real m8.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

That is a question I couldn't do justice to in a short forum post. However in short, it reduces the value of familial bonds, which are the linchpin of civilized society.

Familial bonds? I don't have stats on this, of course, but proportionally I'm 100% sure that you'd find that the amount abuse that occurs within a same sex family where they've adopted a child (or where the child is genetically only that of one parent) is SUBSTANTIALLY less than that of a same sex marriage.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Are you suggesting in the absence of evidence we should deny one group equal rights?.

As I said before (a point which clearly went over your head) to prevent another another from doing as they please you need a good justification (evidence).

I'm not being offensive but that's one of the dumbest posts I've read on here for some time.

I am suggesting that rushing through laws which have a profound impact upon the most important social institution is not something which should be done so casually. Civil unions were enabled just a few years ago, the logical thing to do was wait and see how they panned out.

I'm all in favour of sometimes just rolling the dice, but in this case I don't see any positive value from doing it. Some homosexuals temporarily feel better about themselves, so what? I think the possible negatives far outweigh the known positives.

 

[spoffle]

Not because they are allowed to divorce, because as I implied above, I don't disapprove of the concept of divorce. The issue is how casually marriages can be both begun and ended. There is no social value in this.

So where do you draw the line exactly between what is a valid and what isn't a valid reason for wanting a divorce? If two people who are married no longer want to be married, that's good enough reason. Where do you think your right to judge this comes from exactly?

Why should marriage and social value be related in any sort of way, and realistically how does a lack of marriage reduce social value?

 

[Sliver]

I'm all in favour of sometimes just rolling the dice, but in this case I don't see any positive value from doing it. Some homosexuals temporarily feel better about themselves, so what? I think the possible negatives far outweigh the known positives.

Ok. Please list these potential negatives that you're talking about. I'd be very interested to hear them.

 

[elmarko]

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.

I disagree it's the endorsement of an illegal act, it's a statement in support of changing the law to enable it be a legal act (there is a subtle distinction).

I could support the legalisation of cannabis, but be firmly against the smoking of it in it's currently illegal state - by supporting the legalisation I'm in no way supporting an illegal act. I'm supporting changes to make it legal.

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.

Which is all fine, assuming they do not break our equality laws.

Just because it's their ethos to discriminate against same sex marriage related products it in no way immunised them from criticism & legal challenge - essentially their business 'ethos' may turn out to be illegal if they lose the case.

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.

The first reply covers this section.

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.

As above, I disagree that endorsing a challenge to existing laws is the same thing as endorsing an illegal act.

Additionally, the current legal status is essentially a blip - once Northern Ireland catches up with the rest of the developing world in which changes are occurring rapidly that defence will be absent.

Neither was it the defence presented by the owners in question, it was based on religious grounds.

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.

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.

Again (apologies for reiterating the same point) - I don't agree that the use of a product or service constitutes endorsement.

Endorsement is something done by the company in question (like when many companies in the US publicly expressed endorsement towards equal rights for marriage), not by people who use their products.

Nobody is forcing them to endorse, support or oppose - simply to engage in the basis transactional relationship required by the law.

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.

- I know, I also agree that on the grounds of equality Civil Partnerships being available to all is a good idea.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

I am suggesting that rushing through laws which have a profound impact upon the most important social institution is not something which should be done so casually. Civil unions were enabled just a few years ago, the logical thing to do was wait and see how they panned out.

I'm all in favour of sometimes just rolling the dice, but in this case I don't see any positive value from doing it. Some homosexuals temporarily feel better about themselves, so what? I think the possible negatives far outweigh the known positives.

It's not a case of rolling the dice; all people deserve equal rights.

 

[Tefal]

Not because they are allowed to divorce, because as I implied above, I don't disapprove of the concept of divorce. The issue is how casually marriages can be both begun and ended. There is no social value in this.

yes there is great social value to the normalisation and acceptence of divorce.

take a little think about al lthe situations that can lead to divorce and attempt to see why?


Now you've done that i will explain my deductive reasoning for my statement.

Many people will enter into marriage with good intentions, love in their hearts and the hopes for a long and happy life together.

now things and people change, in some of these once happy couples one partner may become abusive emotionally or physically.

now where marriage is "trivialized" were having a divorce or being divorced has no social negatives tied to it allows the victim to more easily leave, without suffering shame, reprisals or fearing negative backlash. thus they are spared more abuse.


Now in a society where marriage is very highly valued and those with divorces looked down upon or getting a divorce is very hard the victim of abuse is indirectly encouraged and may feel forced even to stay with their partner despite the abuse.

social pressure is a significant factor especially for the vulnerable such as victims of abuse.

So i've deduced from this that the social casual attitude to divorce is actually a benefit.

what is your reasoning that it is a negative?

 

[elmarko]

I think the possible negatives far outweigh the known positives.

Please elaborate.

social pressure is a significant factor especially for the vulnerable such as victims of abuse. So i've deduced from this that the social casual attitude to divorce is actually a benefit.

Indeed, very true.

The last I read around 20% of divorces has an aspect of domestic violence related to them, within a society which frowned upon the act the 20/25,000 men & women in abusive relations less per year would escape the violence they live in.

 

[Tefal]

I'm all in favour of sometimes just rolling the dice, but in this case I don't see any positive value from doing it. Some homosexuals temporarily feel better about themselves, so what? I think the possible negatives far outweigh the known positives.

what are the possible negatives?

 

[Rroff]

However in short, it reduces the value of familial bonds, which are the linchpin of civilized society.

Common misconception IMO, from the same flawed thinking on the subject that was behind 2001: A Space Odyssey.