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

[Frightful Boar]

Because conservative people encourage the restriction of others.

That's funny because I feel that exact way about liberals. This exact issue is about removing someone's rights to religious freedom and rights to refuse service.

The right to have a cake baked the way you want isn't really the same sort of thing.

 

[Tummy]

How is this thread even open still?

GD, what a wonderful place.

 

[elmarko]

That's funny because I feel that exact way about liberals. This exact issue is about removing someone's rights to religious freedom and rights to refuse service.

The right to have a cake baked the way you want isn't really the same sort of thing.

You seem unable to grasp the difference between the right to discriminate & the right to live discrimination free.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

That's funny because I feel that exact way about liberals. This exact issue is about removing someone's rights to religious freedom and rights to refuse service.

The right to have a cake baked the way you want isn't really the same sort of thing.

Well there are two ways to look at it, as you well know; it's either the right to religious freedom, or the right to sexual freedom, sexual freedom clearly being the more important.

 

[RDM]

Well there are two ways to look at it, as you well know; it's either the right to religious freedom, or the right to sexual freedom, sexual freedom clearly being the more important.

You still have the right to religious freedom, your business is a different matter however.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

You still have the right to religious freedom, your business is a different matter however.

Indeed. I would never deny someone's right to religious freedom, although I expect (and still haven't received) the right to freedom from religion.

 

[spoffle]

Indeed. I would never deny someone's right to religious freedom, although I expect (and still haven't received) the right to freedom from religion.

What exactly is the right to freedom from religion?

 

[Sliver]

Indeed. I would never deny someone's right to religious freedom, although I expect (and still haven't received) the right to freedom from religion.

Indeed. Religion is always trying to shoe horn it's self into our society in places where it's not welcome. Regarding the toptic of this thread, it's trying to discriminate against gay people on the basis of buying a ******* cake. It would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that the religious go far beyond this.

 

[Usher]

I suppose that if an MP wanted a Paedophile themed cake it would be kept quiet

 

[Frightful Boar]

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

Are you sure (the familial bonds thing)?

It seems to me that two parents with children conceived naturally would be a far stronger family unit, on the whole, than a couple of gay fellas. Gays just don't have the same sorts of drive to pro-create and raise a family. That drive to reproduce is the primal desire behind wanting to mate and gays don't really mate do they?

Creating a child with a person makes a bond that is phenomenally powerful in my experience. Not to mention the profound and unconditional love I think it's only possible to have for your own child.

 

[elmarko]

What exactly is the right to freedom from religion?

To live in a society without having somebody else's belief in a given religion infringe on your life.

I support freedom of & freedom from religion (which is good for both religious people & none religious people) - it also protects religious people from pressure coming from people of a different faith.

 

[spoffle]

Are you sure (the familial bonds thing)?

It seems to me that two parents with children conceived naturally would be a far stronger family unit, on the whole, than a couple of gay fellas. Gays just don't have the same sorts of drive to pro-create and raise a family. That drive to reproduce is the primal desire behind wanting to mate and gays don't really mate do they?

Creating a child with a person makes a bond that is phenomenally powerful in my experience. Not to mention the profound and unconditional love I think it's only possible to have for your own child.

What about non gays who can't have children, so adopt, are you suggesting they will be a weaker family unit than a couple who have conceived together, because of stuff, things and reasons?

 

[dirtychinchilla]

What exactly is the right to freedom from religion?

The freedom to not have my life interfered in by religious bodies, such as, if I were gay and wanted to marry another man. Or when I was a child and was taught that The Bible was factual.

Indeed. Religion is always trying to shoe horn it's self into our society in places where it's not welcome. Regarding the toptic of this thread, it's trying to discriminate against gay people on the basis of buying a ******* cake. It would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that the religious go far beyond this.

Mmm, the things we allow in the name of religion are nuts. As far as the secular among us are concerned (at least for the majority), homosexuality is a non-issue.

 

[Tefal]

Are you sure (the familial bonds thing)?

It seems to me that two parents with children conceived naturally would be a far stronger family unit, on the whole, than a couple of gay fellas. Gays just don't have the same sorts of drive to pro-create and raise a family. That drive to reproduce is the primal desire behind wanting to mate and gays don't really mate do they?

Creating a child with a person makes a bond that is phenomenally powerful in my experience. Not to mention the profound and unconditional love I think it's only possible to have for your own child.

orphans be ****ed in your head then?

Creating a child with a person makes a bond that is phenomenally powerful in my experience

actually its the ****ing that does that, hence why women tend to have more sex at the star of the relationship because it builds a strong bond in the males brain through the chemicals released then it tapers off as its unnecessary as the bond is formed.

given that gay men typically have higher sex drives and will keep up the shagging for longer they should really have a stronger bond than heteros after an extended length of time.


also im curious where bisexuals fall in your system of being good family men and women.

 

[Sliver]

Creating a child with a person makes a bond that is phenomenally powerful in my experience. Not to mention the profound and unconditional love I think it's only possible to have for your own child.

So by your logic, heterosexuals who adopt are doing the child they adopt a disservice on the grounds that they cannot provide the 'profound and unconditional love' which in your opinion only comes by having your own child. Can you not see how facile that view is ?

 

[spoffle]

To live in a society without having somebody else's belief in a given religion infringe on your life.

I support freedom of & freedom from religion (which is good for both religious people & none religious people) - it also protects religions from pressure from other religions.

"infringe on your life" is such a vague statement that I think it would mean very different things to different people.

I don't think it's remotely realistic to live a life where someone isn't getting bent out of shape over something you're doing that they don't like, or disagree with.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Are you sure (the familial bonds thing)?

It seems to me that two parents with children conceived naturally would be a far stronger family unit, on the whole, than a couple of gay fellas. Gays just don't have the same sorts of drive to pro-create and raise a family. That drive to reproduce is the primal desire behind wanting to mate and gays don't really mate do they?

Creating a child with a person makes a bond that is phenomenally powerful in my experience. Not to mention the profound and unconditional love I think it's only possible to have for your own child.

You're inferring a lot here. We can now create the equivalent of sperm (not quite sure how this works), which uses both men's genes. In any case, a gay man can impregnate a woman, making a natural bond between parent and child. If you were to combine their sperm for IVF, you wouldn't know who fathered the child anyway.

What's to say that any parent is bonded to their child anyway! There is absolutely no guarantee of that whatsoever.

 

[Frightful Boar]

Well there are two ways to look at it, as you well know; it's either the right to religious freedom, or the right to sexual freedom, sexual freedom clearly being the more important.

I'm not in agreement. To a religious person God is more important than being able to freely engage in male on male sex. It might be more important to you, but we're all different. I wouldn't expect a baker, religious or otherwise, but especially if they were religious, to bake a cake with a great big facial cumshot photograph on it and then complain about it when they refused. Relative common sense has got to take over somewhere.

I suppose that if an MP wanted a Paedophile themed cake it would be kept quiet

I'm sure many paedophiles believe their "sexual freedoms" are restricted. Anyway, Usher, inappropriately funny!

 

[Tefal]

what would be realy interesting is in ten years time compare the divorce rates between gay marriages and straight marriages.

will be very interesting for those saying it trivializes marriage if they have a lower rate (which i suspect they will)

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Please elaborate.

As mentioned earlier, I'll need to return to this question when I have more time.

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.

But to pick up the low hanging fruit.

I do not object to the concept of marriage, and where there is domestic abuse that seems like a very good reason for a divorce.

What I object to is people using divorce to enable their own selfishness; people entering into marriages without any sense of responsibility or concept of what a marriage is.

This is all a product of the rampant consumerism and individualism.

Also, just to add. One of the best studies on homosexual adoption found that the children of gay couples performed worse in almost every measure. Studies do suggest that children perform far better with their biological kids.

I am not sure about relative abuse rates, but I would imagine that parents who adopt (same sex or otherwise) tend to have lower abuse rates anyway. Adoption is a very proactive action, so you need to be fairly committed to the idea of raising kids in the first place.