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

spudbynight said:
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.
Click to expand...

What kind of mentality do you have to have to want to start a company that serves the public and then start to pick and choose who you want to deal with. There are rules you have to abide by if you do so, legally enforceable ones and they found out the hard way.

If you don't want to serve the gays or anyone who offends you because of what you CHOOSE to believe then don't start a company that serves the public.

I think this was more about the principle rather than being hard done by. The only way to beat discrimination and inequality is to bring light to it.
 
Last edited:
TheLegendOfMart said:
What kind of mentality do you have to have to want to start a company that serves the public and then start to pick and choose who you want to deal with. There are rules you have to abide by if you do so, legally enforceable ones and they found out the hard way.

If you don't want to serve the gays or anyone who offends you because of what you CHOOSE to believe then don't start a company that serves the public.

I think this was more about the principal rather than being hard done by. The only way to beat discrimination and inequality is to bring light to it.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you, and others miss the point. They do serve 'the gays'. They just didn't want to be involved in the promotion of a political campaign.

They would have refused anyone who asked for that cake to be baked. They treated everyone equally.

Plenty of light has now been shone on the aggressive intolerance of homofascists.
 
The courts found otherwise, they ruled that he was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation as well as the message.

Homofascists....I guess the Negrofascists should have just shut up in the 50s?
 
Last edited:
TheLegendOfMart said:
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.
Click to expand...

The customer wasn't told that, though, was he? He was told that the bakers did not want to bake a cake with the political message he had requested. I know, I know, the judge ruled that there was also discrimination based on sexual orientation (although I'm not sure what the evidence was for this conclusion), but that's what the customer interpreted, not what he was told. It's not as if there was a sign in the window saying 'no fags.'

Hypothetically, if upon appeal it is decided that the 'discrimination' was based solely on the political message, would you back the bakers right to refuse the order?

TheLegendOfMart said:
What kind of mentality do you have to have to want to start a company that serves the public and then start to pick and choose who you want to deal with.
Click to expand...

I suppose you would have to have principles, things you believe in that are more important to you than money, etc.
 
spudbynight said:
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.
Click to expand...

A business, a limited company, doesn't have rights. It's a separate legal entity.

The company directors can choose to run the business however they please, up to the limit of actual discrimination.

Those directors' personal rights have not been denied: they are not forced to be gay, or to support gay marriage.

Besides, the way they pick and choose their Christian beliefs is a little distasteful - suggesting simple bigotry over belief. My favourite local fish & chip shop is Christian owned, and they close on a Sunday as it is a holy day (working on which is punishable by death, per the Bible) - it's pretty damned annoying as a customer who likes a nice Sunday cod, but I somewhat respect their conviction, as they would make a killing from being open that extra day.
 
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...

deuse said:
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.
Click to expand...

Deuse, you need to show a little more respect. A persons sexuality is a deeply personal thing and given the hard time people still get today for being gay it's no surprise that Mart gets annoyed with stereotypical BS. You can hardly compare being hard of hearing with being gay.
 
Fulax said:
Hypothetically, if upon appeal it is decided that the 'discrimination' was based solely on the political message, would you back the bakers right to refuse the order?
Click to expand...

Of course, all I'm going off is the courts ruling on the matter. People are free to disagree and dislike whatever they choose, when they start discriminating based on that is where I take issue with.
 
spudbynight said:
Unfortunately you, and others miss the point. They do serve 'the gays'. They just didn't want to be involved in the promotion of a political campaign.

They would have refused anyone who asked for that cake to be baked. They treated everyone equally.

Plenty of light has now been shone on the aggressive intolerance of homofascists.
Click to expand...

I said this earlier in the thread, but I'll quote it again;
cheesyboy said:
As long as anyone was allowed to buy everything sold, you would be ok with:
- A record store refusing to stock music by black artists?
- A school only providing standing urinals?
- A library refusing to install disabled access?

It's all discriminatory, despite offering the same service to all.
Click to expand...

In those examples, the service offered is discriminatory in nature, but is consistently offered to all without further discrimination. And it's still discrimination
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
If you don't want to serve the gays or anyone who offends you because of what you CHOOSE to believe then don't start a company that serves the public.
Click to expand...

Except they did not refuse the couple due to them being gay, that is the issue. It was the subject matter which caused the refusal of the cake. This is not a case of refusing customers on something they have no choice on, The gay couple CHOOSE to support gay marriage.

You said yourself it is fine to refuse a cake with 'Happy 18th mate, time to get drinking and **** loads of women' as it is against their beliefs because it isn't discriminating against anyone.
Yet it is not ok to refuse a cake that also has a message against their beliefs just because the subject matter happens to relate to homosexuality and therefore promotes the refusal from simply being an acceptable thing to discrimination.
Ultimately, both refusals are a result of the message conflicting with their beliefs, neither refusal is based on whether or not the couple ordering the cake are gay.
 
asteldian said:
Except they did not refuse the couple due to them being gay, that is the issue. It was the subject matter which caused the refusal of the cake. This is not a case of refusing customers on something they have no choice on, The gay couple CHOOSE to support gay marriage.

You said yourself it is fine to refuse a cake with 'Happy 18th mate, time to get drinking and **** loads of women' as it is against their beliefs because it isn't discriminating against anyone.
Yet it is not ok to refuse a cake that also has a message against their beliefs just because the subject matter happens to relate to homosexuality and therefore promotes the refusal from simply being an acceptable thing to discrimination.
Ultimately, both refusals are a result of the message conflicting with their beliefs, neither refusal is based on whether or not the couple ordering the cake are gay.
Click to expand...

All I am going off is what the courts ruled, they ruled that Ashers discriminated against the activist based on his sexual orientation.

No one knows what the exact conversation was between the baker and customer and either side is going to be biased after the fact so I can't say either side is correct.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are we not all protected by the same laws? Beating up a gay person should be against the law because beating up ANY person is against the law. Special laws are not needed and the perceived status of 'protected group' is counter productive.

I don't believe a baker should have to make a cake bearing a pro-homosexual message if they don't agree with it. Nor should they have to make a cake bearing a pro-BNP messages.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
Are we not all protected by the same laws? Beating up a gay person should be against the law because beating up ANY person is against the law. Special laws are not needed and the perceived status of 'protected group' is counter productive.
Click to expand...

My point is that you don't get all of the above happen to you just because you are straight, that's why gays need 'special' laws.
 
cheesyboy said:
I said this earlier in the thread, but I'll quote it again;


In those examples, the service offered is discriminatory in nature, but is consistently offered to all without further discrimination. And it's still discrimination
Click to expand...

It wasn't a good argument the first time around.

Do you really think a record shop should be compelled to stock certain products? What sort of fascism is this.

Standing urinals only. Does nobody poo-poo in this school?

A library is state owned and as such has duties to provide services like disabled access. I don't believe a private company should be compelled to provide disabled access.
 
Sliver said:
Deuse, you need to show a little more respect. A persons sexuality is a deeply personal thing and given the hard time people still get today for being gay it's no surprise that Mart gets annoyed with stereotypical BS. You can hardly compare being hard of hearing with being gay.
Click to expand...

This is the same Deuse who sticks up for the rights of women and gays when they are being abused by extremists of the muslim faith - a bigot will bigot the rest of us find no logic in it
 
cheesyboy said:
Mate, they open on a Sunday - tell me that's not money talking over principles.
Click to expand...

Friend, if they interpreted the bible literally they would have stoned the gay customer to death as soon as he entered the shop.

You can have some deeply held principles that you think are worth maintaining even if it causes you harm and others, less deeply held, that you are prepared to sacrifice to some degree for the sake of convenience. That doesn't make you a hypocrite. Same-sex marriage is a big political issue in Northern Ireland at the moment. Whether or not shops should be open on Sunday isn't.
 
spudbynight said:
It wasn't a good argument the first time around.

Do you really think a record shop should be compelled to stock certain products? What sort of fascism is this.

Standing urinals only. Does nobody poo-poo in this school?

A library is state owned and as such has duties to provide services like disabled access. I don't believe a private company should be compelled to provide disabled access.
Click to expand...

Yeah because not stocking a record is the same as telling people they are a second class citizen not deserving of the same rights and privileges as 'normal' people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom