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

elmarko said:
Because individuals currently are allowed to be stupid & bigoted.

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

We were talking about the reasons for this being the case, and you said that it was because a business has a social contract. You now admit individuals have a social contract also, so the reason for differentiating them is clearly not that.

Now, imagine Queerspace decides to make a line of biscuits (yeah, I know).

Supermarkets stock them but the local corner shop store is run by a bloke who refuses to stock them. He stocks other brands of biscuits. In a conversation with an undercover reporter, he confides that he won't stock the biscuits as he doesn't agree with their agenda.

Lawsuit? Yes/no?
 
FoxEye said:
We were talking about the reasons for this being the case, and you said that it was because a business has a social contract. You now admit individuals have a social contract also, so the reason for differentiating them is clearly not that.

Now, imagine Queerspace decides to make a line of biscuits (yeah, I know).

Supermarkets stock them but the local corner shop store is run by a bloke who refuses to stock them. He stocks other brands of biscuits. In a conversation with an undercover reporter, he confides that he won't stock the biscuits as he doesn't agree with their agenda.

Lawsuit? Yes/no?
Click to expand...
What point are you attempting top make? (due to the leading nature of the question, it will save some time if you make a statement as to what your trying to say instead of getting there via a number of back & forth posts).

Currently nobody is obliged to pre-stock anything from a legal perspective (as far as I'm aware).
 
elmarko said:
What point are you attempting top make? (due to the leading nature of the question, it will save some time if you make a statement as to what your trying to say instead of getting there via a number of back & forth posts).

Currently nobody is obliged to pre-stock anything from a legal perspective (as far as I'm aware).
Click to expand...

So you're not obliged to stock someone else's product that you don't agree with, but you are obliged to make a product yourself that you don't agree with?

Hmm.
 
elmarko said:
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'.

Because individuals currently are allowed to be stupid & bigoted.

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

I wasn't using that example in that way. The point I was trying to prove was that if someone asked you to bake a cake with a picture / slogan which either offended you or went against something that you deeply believe in, would you do it?
 
FoxEye said:
So you're not obliged to stock someone else's product that you don't agree with, but you are obliged to make a product yourself that you don't agree with?

Hmm.
Click to expand...

We don't know that yet...there has been no legal ruling nor clarification as to what obligations the Baker has.

To my mind, the Baker is within his remit to refuse to supply anything that supports or associates with a political campaign to change the current law. I think the prospective legal action against the Baker is superficial and if successful opens up an entire warehouse full of worm cans as it effectively will mean that you cannot oppose a political or legal campaign if it is associated with or impacts on a minority.

For me the Baker did not discriminate against homosexuals or a political group...he simply exercised his right not to associate with or support a campaign which he doesn't agree with as is, or at least should be, a fundamental protection under a democratic system.
 
FoxEye said:
So you're not obliged to stock someone else's product that you don't agree with, but you are obliged to make a product yourself that you don't agree with?

Hmm.
Click to expand...
The two are not the same & you either know it, or haven't thought about it sufficiently.

Refusal to stock would be comparable (if they had a process in which you could request stock) on grounds protected by discrimination laws.

The point is, you are not obliged to stock anything at all (nobody is forcing an individual to open a shop) - you are on the other hand obliged to treat customers equally & not discriminate based on protected criteria.

Was this your silver bullet you've been dancing around or do you have a greater point you wish me to demolish also?.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
If heterosexuals didn't "act on their desires and impulses" then the human race would be rather diminished.
Click to expand...
You know full well what the point was, even heterosexuals do not have to act on their impulses or desires.

Hikari Kisugi said:
Especially if you are going to quote actual scriptures at people, best to know which source you believe in, you better state your source.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to get into a pointless debate about who's Bible is better than who's Bible or who's source is more reliable than anothers, pointless debates imho.

Let's get back to exactly what this is all about, it is about queer space wanting everyone to support same sex marriages, guess what?, it is not going to happen, it's never going to happen, you can't force others to support something they don't want to support, it is as simple as that.

Cheap shot from queer space, stiring up trouble.
 
elmarko said:
Was this your silver bullet you've been dancing around or do you have a greater point you wish me to demolish also?.
Click to expand...

Stay classy, elmarko. I guess you want to reduce this to a ****ing contest?

I never claimed to have a silver/magic bullet. Was just throwing an idea out there.
 
elmarko said:
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.
Click to expand...

This doesn't hold up though. If there was a clear social responsibility then most existing business practices wouldn't hold up to any form of scrutiny. That's not even touching the whole idea of the idea of profiteering.

As for the finite space argument, surely that viewpoint is putting you firmly into a authoritarian mode of people not having the right to their own property unless they adhere to the ethical policy you set out.

People are different, people derive their happiness, moral codes and identities differently, its part of what makes the world so interesting. So yes, it is a freedom of expression, and whilst I may not particularly like it (and I reckon with the rise of differing cultures in society today, I reckon we're going to see far more obnoxious examples soon), I would still defend someones right on how they use their time and energy.
 
FoxEye said:
Stay classy, elmarko. I guess you want to reduce this to a ****ing contest?

I never claimed to have a silver/magic bullet. Was just throwing an idea out there.
Click to expand...
Apologies, I appear to have mistaken the tone of your previous comments as being 'nitpickingly' argumentative.

A large proportion of this thread has been people comparing things which are fundamentally different (usually paedophilia is a popular one when debating anything to do with equal rights for gay people) & I guess my patience is a little worn.

sports_brah said:
This doesn't hold up though. If there was a clear social responsibility then most existing business practices wouldn't hold up to any form of scrutiny. That's not even touching the whole idea of the idea of profiteering.

As for the finite space argument, surely that viewpoint is putting you firmly into a authoritarian mode of people not having the right to their own property unless they adhere to the ethical policy you set out.

People are different, people derive their happiness, moral codes and identities differently, its part of what makes the world so interesting. So yes, it is a freedom of expression, and whilst I may not particularly like it (and I reckon with the rise of differing cultures in society today, I reckon we're going to see far more obnoxious examples soon), I would still defend someones right on how they use their time and energy.
Click to expand...
Can't you envisage how allowing total freedom to discriminate for businesses may cause a few problems for wider society?.

(In reference to)

sports_brah said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Just a thought, but what's to stop them buying a generic cake and putting the Queerspace logo on it themselves? I'm assuming that was the only decoration missing?

They could probably have asked for, and received, a rainbow cake with unicorns on it (cliches ahoy). It was just the name of that political group that was the problem?
 
kedge said:
Let's get back to exactly what this is all about, it is about queer space wanting everyone to support same sex marriages, guess what?, it is not going to happen, it's never going to happen, you can't force others to support something they don't want to support, it is as simple as that.

Cheap shot from queer space, stiring up trouble.
Click to expand...

I hate to be the one to break this to you but it WILL happen.

People thought women were inferior and men looked down on them, now look at them. (Example: Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton)

People thought coloured people were inferior and were a second class race, now look at them. (Example: Barack Obama)

People think gays are inferior, watch this space...
 
Casdawer said:
I hate to be the one to break this to you but it WILL happen.

People thought women were inferior and men looked down on them, now look at them. (Example: Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton)

People thought coloured people were inferior and were a second class race, now look at them. (Example: Barack Obama)

People think gays are inferior, watch this space...
Click to expand...

I hate to break this to you but billions around the world still do.
 
Casdawer said:
I hate to be the one to break this to you but it WILL happen.

People thought women were inferior and men looked down on them, now look at them. (Example: Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton)
Click to expand...
Yes, misogyny is absolutely 100% a thing of the past. For sure.

People thought coloured people were inferior and were a second class race, now look at them. (Example: Barack Obama)
Click to expand...
Yes, there aren't any places, like say in America, where whites and blacks don't mix. No way! You only read about that in history books now.

People think gays are inferior, watch this space...
Click to expand...
Oh totally, watch this space ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom