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

[FoxEye]

If we're going with a general, they all say the same thing, the general message is the same, then the pathway of the new testament is very clear.

Love God, and your fellow man.
Forgiveness.
Understanding.
Look at your own failing before you judge others.

If we're looking at a more fire and brimstone style preaching, encompassing the [snip] old testament, then you better state your source.

This is indeed true. Paraphrased: 'According to how you judge others you will yourself be judged.' Forgive as often as possible and don't look for fault in others.

But this does not imply becoming an accessory to something that you consider wrong. Also the Bible plainly states that what is wrong is often a matter of conscience, believe it or not.

So whilst we shouldn't mistreat gay people in any way, the baker is still under no obligation to promote homosexuality. If writing "Queerspace" on a cake falls under that category, we shouldn't force any Christian to do so.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Not quite.
Especially if you are going to quote actual scriptures at people, best to know which source you believe in, as there is variation.

If we're going with a general, they all say the same thing, the general message is the same, then the pathway of the new testament is very clear.

Love God, and your fellow man.
Forgiveness.
Understanding.
Look at your own failing before you judge others.


If we're looking at a more fire and brimstone style preaching, encompassing the general drivel of the old testament, then you better state your source.

Very well put. This, I think, is the real message of Christianity, not this hateful crap kedge puts forward.

 

[mrk]

That "quote" as you put it comes directly from God's word the Bible.

Directly eh, so who wrote the bible? A man did and we all are aware that men are regularly corrupted surely

 

[Casdawer]

Ok, my 5 cents is going to be a bit of rambling and thus not in any kind of order...

I support Gay rights just like a support the rights of every man, woman and child of this earth no matter the colour of the skin, the God they worship or who they chose to sleep with.

We as human beings are not racist, sexist or anti-anything at birth. A child does not judge nor does it care about the differences that you might have because after all, your just another human being living on this earth. People become anti-something by the people around them. If your parents are anti-gay, you'll most likely become anti-gay unless you have exposure to people who aren't and you decide what you find to be acceptable.

Being Gay is not a choice. A man/woman doesn't wake up in the morning and go "Oh, I fancy being gay now" and then skips down the street. It's the hormones and chemistry of our bodies which defines who we are and trying to 'change' people because of that is just pointless and wrong.

In regards to this bakery, I actually support the bakery and here's why... It's his shop, he can do whatever he likes. If he doesn't want to bake it, he doesn't have too. All of us have lines that we do not cross and this man rightly so has said he will not cross his. We cannot punish him for standing up for what he believes in even if we think it's wrong.

I will admit that gays (and feminists for that matter) always pull the victim card when something doesn't go their way and that makes matters worse for them all as people get a bit fed up with it all.

 

[elmarko]

In regards to this bakery, I actually support the bakery and here's why... It's his shop, he can do whatever he likes. If he doesn't want to bake it, he doesn't have too. All of us have lines that we do not cross and this man rightly so has said he will not cross his. We cannot punish him for standing up for what he believes in even if we think it's wrong.

I will admit that gays (and feminists for that matter) always pull the victim card when something doesn't go their way and that makes matters worse for them all as people get a bit fed up with it all.

Based on that, do you think a shopkeeper should be able to turn away anybody based off any criteria?.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

I will admit that gays (and feminists for that matter) always pull the victim card when something doesn't go their way and that makes matters worse for them all as people get a bit fed up with it all.

Very good of you to admit it, sir!

They make up a very small minority of people in the world, and still are not treated with the rights that they are entitled to. If you let small things like this slide, people will never realise what arses they've been.

 

[sports_brah]

Based on that, do you think a shopkeeper should be able to turn away anybody based off any criteria?.

Yes I do.

If a shop decided tomorrow to not serve blacks and gays, I'd be fine with that. Why? Because even though I'd see their practice as distasteful, I understand that it is their business.

I also know that they'd be out of business very soon.


It's a tough cookie to swallow, but I believe firmly that people's beliefs and opinions should not be enforced by others.


The baker didn't want to produce gay propaganda, there are many places that would, and to force him, is to force a very insidious agenda.

 

[FoxEye]

Very good of you to admit it, sir!

They make up a very small minority of people in the world, and still are not treated with the rights that they are entitled to. If you let small things like this slide, people will never realise what arses they've been.

As said before, trying to force people to go against their own beliefs isn't going to work.

What's to stop the bakery quoting a silly high price for the work? What's to stop them outsourcing to a difference bakery?

Or are you going to codify in law that a gay person/minority can force a tradesman to do work for him against his will, and to stipulate the price as well?

 

[dirtychinchilla]

As said before, trying to force people to go against their own beliefs isn't going to work.

What's to stop the bakery quoting a silly high price for the work? What's to stop them outsourcing to a difference bakery?

Or are you going to codify in law that a gay person/minority can force a tradesman to do work for him against his will, and to stipulate the price as well?

No one has stopped them enforcing their belief not to make the cake. What they have done is raised awareness that these cretins still exist, which I think is perfectly acceptable. I thought I read somewhere earlier in the thread that it was actually the bakers who'd gone to the papers anyway.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I was trying to think of a way to get the 'i am not a shop' reference into this thread without it being obvious but still funny but I couldn't so I posted this instead so now no one is happy.

 

[Casdawer]

Very good of you to admit it, sir!

They make up a very small minority of people in the world, and still are not treated with the rights that they are entitled to. If you let small things like this slide, people will never realise what arses they've been.

I treat everyone with the same level of respect no matter what. In order to move forward, we need to educate the younger generation to be more accepting. Trying to force our pro-gay views on the older generation is a waste of time and forcing the views on them is as bad as them trying to force religion on to people who do not want it.

Based on that, do you think a shopkeeper should be able to turn away anybody based off any criteria?.

Yes. We talk about the rights of gays, but what about the rights of the shop owner?

Are we saying that certain rights are more important than others? Should we start a game of trumps with gay rights, human rights, womens rights etc.?

 

[elmarko]

Yes I do.

If a shop decided tomorrow to not serve blacks and gays, I'd be fine with that. Why? Because even though I'd see their practice as distasteful, I understand that it is their business.

But a business relies on society's infrastructure & elements which allow it to function (fire safety, educated population, police force).

This is part of the social contract they are obliged to follow when creating a business - exclusion breaks this agreement (which is also laid out legally). What a person does on a private level is indeed his own prerogative - but a business is a public entity, even if privately owned.

Yes. We talk about the rights of gays, but what about the rights of the shop owner?

Are we saying that certain rights are more important than others? Should we start a game of trumps with gay rights, human rights, womens rights etc.?

A shop owner has the same rights, they have the right to not face discrimination & be denied services.

The right to live free from discrimination is not the same as the right to discriminate.

Perhaps a different example will aid in understanding - the 'right' for person A to live free from violence trumps the right of person B to inflict violence, this is pretty basic stuff. I fail to see why this incredibly simple yet important distinction is so hard for many to understand.

 

[Destination]

Okay, so political messages on a cake.
Are they all acceptable?
Should he have the right to refuse none?

He didn't refuse a cake, just the message.
Is there a line? If republican prisoners group wanted a free the POWs cake, should the shop have to provide it? Specifically this shop, and that cake, no group being illegal.

 

[Casdawer]

But a business relies on society's infrastructure & elements which allow it to function (fire safety, educated population, police force).

This is part of the social contracet they are obliged to follow when creating a business - exclusion breaks this agrement (which is also laid out legally). What a person does on a private level is indeed his own prerogative - but a business is a public entity, even if privately owned.

A shop owner has the same rights, they have the right to not face discrimination & be denied services.

The right to live free from discrimination is not the same as the right to discriminate.

Perhaps a different example will aid in understanding - the 'right' for person A to live free from violence trumps the right of person B to inflict violence, this is pretty basic stuff. I fail to see why this incredibly simple yet important distinction is so hard for many to understand.

I'll give you example: Your a baker and someone comes to your store. You turn around and it's Abu Hamza (the hate preacher). He wants to buy a cake which says "Death to all non-Muslims". Would you bake that cake?

 

[sports_brah]

But a business relies on society's infrastructure & elements which allow it to function (fire safety, educated population, police force).

This is part of the social contract they are obliged to follow when creating a business - exclusion breaks this agreement (which is also laid out legally). What a person does on a private level is indeed his own prerogative - but a business is a public entity, even if privately owned.

A shop owner has the same rights, they have the right to not face discrimination & be denied services.

The right to live free from discrimination is not the same as the right to discriminate.

Perhaps a different example will aid in understanding - the 'right' for person A to live free from violence trumps the right of person B to inflict violence, this is pretty basic stuff. I fail to see why this incredibly simple yet important distinction is so hard for many to understand.

No, people have no particular choice when it comes to a social contract, they are part of of it through the sheer will of the majority.

They fufill their social contract by paying the required amount of taxes that allow them to operate. That's what funds the infrastructure.

Having paid this social contract, they are now (in my opinion) entitled to hawk for business as they see fit.

And lets not forget, they didn't refuse him service because they were gay (though my spider senses are tingling as to why an activist group even chose them in the first place), they refused to support a group that peddles (rightly or wrongly) a particular agenda.

 

[elmarko]

Okay, so political messages on a cake.
Are they all acceptable?
Should he have the right to refuse none?

He didn't refuse a cake, just the message.
Is there a line? If republican prisoners group wanted a free the POWs cake, should the shop have to provide it? Specifically this shop, and that cake, no group being illegal.

Assuming the message isn't illegal, about the inciting to cause harm of objective human suffering (which are pretty much already illegal in most cases) I fail to see why a business should have the capacity to refuse business on those grounds either.

(To note, I was replying to people who believe you should be able to refuse based off any criteria, such as race or sex)

No, people have no particular choice when it comes to a social contract, they are part of of it through the sheer will of the majority.

They fufill their social contract by paying the required amount of taxes that allow them to operate. That's what funds the infrastructure.

Having paid this social contract, they are now (in my opinion) entitled to hawk for business as they see fit.

And lets not forget, they didn't refuse him service because they were gay (though my spider senses are tingling as to why an activist group even chose them in the first place), they refused to support a group that peddles (rightly or wrongly) a particular agenda.

That's your own selective & subjective choice on what constitutes the social obligation - all pay tax taxes & cover the infrastructure costs of the UK & have the right to partake in the services these businesses offer.

There is a finite amount of space within the UK & can't permit the kind of childish & frankly absurd idea that people who do business by the grace of society should have the capacity to pick & choose who they do business with.

Let's get things clear, this isn't a view based on freedom of expression - it's freedom to discriminate & a lack of social responsability.

 

[RDM]

Is there a line? If republican prisoners group wanted a free the POWs cake, should the shop have to provide it? Specifically this shop, and that cake, no group being illegal.

Possibly a bad example as, in Northern Ireland, you are not allowed to discriminate due to political opinion in the provision of Goods and Services so they would possibly have to do that too.

 

[Castiel]

Possibly a bad example as, in Northern Ireland, you are not allowed to discriminate due to political opinion in the provision of Goods and Services so they would possibly have to do that too.

No they wouldn't, as political opinion doesn't mean political campaigning. What they couldn't do is refuse to serve someone strictly on the basis of their political persuasion, so for example if they were a republican and asked for a Victoria sponge cake then it would be discrimination to refuse to serve them, however this doesn't extend to refusing to support or associate with a political campaign itself, as unlike Religious Discrimination, Political Opinion is limited to direct discrimination. Therefore they do not have to supply a cake with a specific slogan on it. The reason this is not discrimination under the political opinion is because it is the slogan they are refusing on the grounds of their political opinion and not the refusal to serve the customer based on their political opinion as they would refuse the order no matter what the political opinion of the customer happened to be. If someone of a specific political persuasion was forced to associate or support through association a specific political campaign they disagreed that would in fact be discriminatory, so the baker is effectively the discriminated party here if such civil legal action goes against him. Besides the definition of 'political opinion' specifically excludes an opinion which consists of or includes approval or acceptance of the use of violence for political ends connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, including the use of violence for the purpose of putting the public in fear.

 

[FoxEye]

But a business relies on society's infrastructure & elements which allow it to function (fire safety, educated population, police force).

So does an individual. Absolutely no difference.

What a person does on a private level is indeed his own prerogative - but a business is a public entity, even if privately owned.

Why should there be a difference?

Your claim that social contract applies only to business makes no sense. As an individual, I rely on fire, police, and council provided services also...

 

[elmarko]

I'll give you example: Your a baker and someone comes to your store. You turn around and it's Abu Hamza (the hate preacher). He wants to buy a cake which says "Death to all non-Muslims". Would you bake that cake?

I see you didn't read my previous post in which I said assuming it was legal/wasn't hate speech or inciting acts which cause objective suffering or harm then.

But it's telling that you think the promotion of equality is in any way comparable to inciting murder - I eagerly await the predictable comparison with legalising paedophilia & bestiality to complete the 'holy trinity of ignorance'.

So does an individual. Absolutely no difference.

Why should there be a difference?

Your claim that social contract applies only to business makes no sense. As an individual, I rely on fire, police, and council provided services also...

Because individuals currently are allowed to be stupid & bigoted.

It's difficult to legislate against it without becoming increasingly authoritarian.