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

TheLegendOfMart said:
Yeah they went to a cake shop to make a cake just so they could kick up a fuss and get meager compensation which they then donated to charity.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put it past them as they are a bunch of drama queens.

You may not like it but these kind of cases get so much attention is because of discrimination and inequality. If they are just told to put up and shut up then nothing will ever happen and gays will always be second class citizens.
Click to expand...

So I can have 4 wives now? and they are homosexuals not gay.

I guess you don't have empathy or compassion being a straight, white, male eh. Let's hope nothing ever happens to you and people just tell you to shut up and deal with it...
Click to expand...

Sticks and stones ;) When you're an adult you learn to deal with things.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
I guess you don't have empathy or compassion being a straight, white, male eh. Let's hope nothing ever happens to you and people just tell you to shut up and deal with it...
Click to expand...

Someone refused to bake them a cake. You're right, I do hope nothing that traumatic ever happens to me.
 
I think the case is silly.

There is a huge difference between 'Sorry, we don't serve your kind here' and 'sorry, we are not comfortable designing such a cake'

It is a business run by Catholics, they have their beliefs, to not serve customers because of their beliefs is crossing a line and is discrimination, they have no choice there and nor should they. But not agreeing to certain designs should be their right.

If a customer wanted a cake to say 'Happy 18th mate, time to get drinking and **** loads of women' I would expect the Bakers to refuse that too.
 
Fulax said:
Someone refused to bake them a cake. You're right, I do hope nothing that traumatic ever happens to me.
Click to expand...

...because of the sexual orientation of the customer which is ILLEGAL by LAW.

asteldian said:
If a customer wanted a cake to say 'Happy 18th mate, time to get drinking and **** loads of women' I would expect the Bakers to refuse that too.
Click to expand...

The difference is that isn't discriminating against anyone. Why is this so hard to understand....

deuse said:
So I can have 4 wives now? and they are homosexuals not gay.
Click to expand...
No because that's illegal, being gay isn't illegal but discriminating against them because they are gay IS.
Sticks and stones ;) When you're an adult you learn to deal with things.
Click to expand...

I hope you'll heed your own advice the next time you need to phone the police about a law that was broken with regards to yourself. Imagine how you'd feel if your house got broken into and the police just said "When you're an adult you learn to deal with things" and then hung up?
 
Last edited:
TheLegendOfMart said:
Yeah they went to a cake shop to make a cake just so they could kick up a fuss and get meager compensation which they then donated to charity.

You may not like it but these kind of cases get so much attention is because of discrimination and inequality. If they are just told to put up and shut up then nothing will ever happen and gays will always be second class citizens.

I guess you don't have empathy or compassion being a straight, white, male eh. Let's hope nothing ever happens to you and people just tell you to shut up and deal with it...
Click to expand...

Its not a question of discrimination based on their sexuality though. The issue wasn't the gay couples sexuality, but the political nature of the message they wanted on the cake. If the BNP had asked for a party-political cake to be made for them, I'd absolutely support the right of the bakery to refuse.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
Its not a question of discrimination based on their sexuality though. The issue wasn't the gay couples sexuality, but the political nature of the message they wanted on the cake. If the BNP had asked for a party-political cake to be made for them, I'd absolutely support the right of the bakery to refuse.
Click to expand...

The firm was found to have discriminated against Mr Lee on the grounds of sexual orientation as well as his political beliefs.
Click to expand...

BNP aren't a protected class of people under anti discrimination laws.

deuse said:
But you're discriminating against me and my(would be) 4 wives. I WANT JUSTICE!
Click to expand...

Then fight for it like gay people fight for their rights.....?

Gay people would probably help you fight for your rights as well.
 
Why is anyone still discussing this bull... the bakers said TOO MUCH, simple as, as with any arrogant ******.

If the defendants were found also discriminating because the accused was Christian and straight, an equal measure of the law should and would be applied. (clearly didn't happen)
 
Last edited:
After that motorcycle gang shootout in Texas I keep reading the thread title as 'Bikers refuse Gay wedding cake, now in trouble...'

Makes for more sense than this one now.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
1. I don't give a hoop what the court determined.
2. Why should homosexuals be protected?
Click to expand...

Yeah I completely agree, homosexuals shouldn't be protected at all. People should be able to abuse them, beat them up, kill them, refuse to serve them, refuse to house them, refuse to give them a job purely because of what they get up to in the bedroom.

They should repeal equality laws concerning women and non-whites as well, why should they deserve special treatment.

Why not just do away with civilised society and go back to the caveman mentality you clearly display. You are a few thousand years out of date.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
...because of the sexual orientation of the customer which is ILLEGAL by LAW.



The difference is that isn't discriminating against anyone. Why is this so hard to understand....


No because that's illegal, being gay isn't illegal but discriminating against them because they are gay IS.


I hope you'll heed your own advice the next time you need to phone the police about a law that was broken with regards to yourself. Imagine how you'd feel if your house got broken into and the police just said "When you're an adult you learn to deal with things" and then hung up?
Click to expand...

They didn't discriminate against the couple, the couple could buy a cake. They were against the message because it conflicts with their beliefs.

If the Catholic couple went to a cake shop run by a gay couple and requested a cake that said 'Say No to Gay marriage because God says it's wrong' I would expect the gay couple to refuse such a cake. I would not expect the Catholic couple to win a case based on Religious Discrimination.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
I'm 6 foot 4 and not stereotypically gay, if you met me you wouldn't be able to tell that I was. Keep your moronic comments to yourself.
Click to expand...

Do you want me to bake a cake for you as it's you coming out party?
As I said "sticks and stones" one needs to grow up and deal with it dude.

I'm hard of hearing and do you know how many times a day I hear "out the way! are you deaf or something? move" :)
Do I get angry? no I'm a grown up and my mother taught me not to be a moron.
 
I'm hard of hearing as well, I never get that. Maybe you need to surround yourselves with decent people.

I'm not sure why I should just shut up and deal with it if I'm told I can't get or do something just because I like to smoke poles.
 
asteldian said:
They didn't discriminate against the couple, the couple could buy a cake. They were against the message because it conflicts with their beliefs.

If the Catholic couple went to a cake shop run by a gay couple and requested a cake that said 'Say No to Gay marriage because God says it's wrong' I would expect the gay couple to refuse such a cake. I would not expect the Catholic couple to win a case based on Religious Discrimination.
Click to expand...

I think the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus would agree that the gay couple would be perfectly within their rights to do so. Our same reasonable man would suggest that Ashers were perfectly within their rights to do likewise.

What we have here is a decision, which is clearly not allowing reasonable accommodation.

The gay rights activist wasn't a victim, he was the perpetrator. He actively went out of his way to deny the rights of others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom