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

[D.P.]

People (I.e. UKIP voting homophobes) have it the completely wrong way round. Gays aren't getting special protection laws, it is bigots that are subjected to special laws that prohibit their bigotry inflicting others.

If there were no homophobic morons then there old be no need for such laws. The bigots bring these situations on them selves and face the consequence of their own irrational prejudices.


The homophobic morons Fail to see that it is not the victims fault but the perpetrator. You can't blame a murder victim for being killed, the homicide laws exist to prohibit the murderer.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Says the straight guy......

Why do you assume I am heterosexual? I've never commented on my own sexuality.

 

[spoffle]

People (I.e. UKIP voting homophobes) have it the completely wrong way round. Gays aren't getting special protection laws, it is bigots that are subjected to special laws that prohibit their bigotry inflicting others.

If there were no homophobic morons then there old be no need for such laws. The bigots bring these situations on them selves and face the consequence of their own irrational prejudices.


The homophobic morons Fail to see that it is not the victims fault but the perpetrator. You can't blame a murder victim for being killed, the homicide laws exist to prohibit the murderer.

Well there are technically special laws for gays. They are however there to right a wrong, in that there used to be laws against being gay.

 

[spoffle]

Why do you assume I am heterosexual? I've never commented on my own sexuality.

He seems to be assuming that any disagreement is because the person is white and hetero, whilst complaining about discrimination and assumptions based on it.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Why do you assume I am heterosexual? I've never commented on my own sexuality.

Is that a trick question?

He seems to be assuming that any disagreement is because the person is white and hetero, whilst complaining about discrimination and assumptions based on it.

Only because it is usually people who have the position of being the most protected by the rights and laws of this land seem to want to tell me how I can live my life, who can sleep with and who I can marry....sorry get civil partnered to.

 

[spoffle]

Is that a trick question?

He's highlighting that you are making assumptions about people that you really shouldn't be, based on the standpoint you have demonstrated in this thread.

On more than one occasion in this thread you've made the assumption that people disagreeing with what you've said, is because they are white, hetero males who've not had to experience discrimination related abuse.

Only because it is usually people who have the position of being the most protected by the rights and laws of this land seem to want to tell me how I can live my life, who can sleep with and who I can marry....sorry get civil partnered to.

Ah, but that is still an assumption, and your response is poised in such a way as to assume they possess those same qualities. I'm simply highlighting that this sort of response is at odds with your stance on making assumptions about people, especially with regards to how you're not "stereotypically gay" and 6 foot 4 (I'm still unsure of why that's relevant, though).

 

[D.P.]

Well there are technically special laws for gays. They are however there to right a wrong, in that there used to be laws against being gay.

The laws profit discrimination inaction by bigot, they are anti-homophobic laws. It doesn't afford them more rights, only equal rights.

 

[Sankari]

If you cut a gay wedding cake, is that considered a homophobic attack? I'm confused.

 

[Sliver]

If you cut a gay wedding cake, is that considered a homophobic attack? I'm confused.

I there is a gay inside the cake, then yes.

 

[spoffle]

The laws profit discrimination inaction by bigot, they are anti-homophobic laws. It doesn't afford them more rights, only equal rights.

Sure, but I never suggested it did afford them more rights. But that doesn't mean it isn't a law specially for them.

It was simply deemed necessary for there to be a special law for them, because of how their group has been treated in the past, especially by the law.

 

[The IPB]

If you cut a gay wedding cake, is that considered a homophobic attack? I'm confused.

Only if someone is offended.

 

[spoffle]

I there is a gay inside the cake, then yes.

It's not discriminatory to cut a gay, it's only discriminatory to cut a gay if you're cutting them for being gay.

 

[thep02]

Funny how Ashers use uniforms made of more than one type of cloth, how they sell shellfish/pork products and are open on Sundays.

Yet somehow those bits from their Holy book get overlooked for profit but homosexuality...oh no!!!!

If these so-called 'born again Christians' were that dedicated to their Holy book then they would apply all of it and not just the bits that fit their personal modern compasses.

Christians who blame their issue with Gay Marriage on some kind of devout commitment to scripture remind me of people in the 60s who said they didn't want black people moving into the neighbourhood not because they were racist, but because they were so loving they feared these new immigrants would be bullied.

Stop hiding and just admit you're bigoted and then we can move on.

This well said.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

He's highlighting that you are making assumptions about people that you really shouldn't be, based on the standpoint you have demonstrated in this thread.

On more than one occasion in this thread you've made the assumption that people disagreeing with what you've said, is because they are white, hetero males who've not had to experience discrimination related abuse.




Ah, but that is still an assumption, and your response is poised in such a way as to assume they possess those same qualities. I'm simply highlighting that this sort of response is at odds with your stance on making assumptions about people, especially with regards to how you're not "stereotypically gay" and 6 foot 4 (I'm still unsure of why that's relevant, though).

I've read his borderline racist, homophobic posts in the past so it's not a stretch of the imagination to assume that he is straight and white.

 

[wazza300]

they could have baked them some fairy cakes?

 

[thep02]

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

Bigoted ***** have every right to look like confused morons when they have to change opinions from thread to thread, it's not easy for a moron to keep track of such things.

 

[Haggisman]

Am I missing something in this story?

I thought they refused based on what was requested to be on the cake - didn't discriminate because the potential customer was gay, but effectively because they wanted a gay propoganda cake.

That's what I'd have argued. No different to a white supremacist asking for a nazi cake or similar - and I'm sure there would be no uproar if that was refused, or someone asking for a cake with a bunch of profanities on it.

Because if they refused the order because the customer was gay, that is discrimination. If they refused the order because the content of the order offended them, how is that discrimination?

If a straight person had ordered this cake and they still refused, who is being discriminated against then?

And forget the nazi example then - what about someone requesting a cake with swearing on "Happy birthday you ****" and they refused.
That is not against the law, and I don't see how refusing that would be discriminatory.

Also you say "Both of which would be offensive". Offensive is subjective - they found this request offensive, whether you like their reasons or not.

your examples are stupid and draw no parallels with refusing to provide a cake with a gay image on it.

Instead imagine a black couple had requested a cake with a picture of themselves on it, and the bakery had refused because they found black people offensive - would this be acceptable to you?

 

[StriderX]

Was there ever a description of what they actually wanted on the cake?

 

[thep02]

Nope. You and the other guy just don't understand the full usage of the comma.

Too true.

 

[asteldian]

That is the point there is no grey area, you are either accepting or not there is no scale. Someone would be harboring these feelings before they say "that's it I'm a gay hater because of the B&B or Cake cases".

Think about it this way, it was enshrined in law that practicing homosexuality was a criminal offense and a lot of people who are alive today still probably think that way after all it was only decriminalised a few decades ago. So what wrong with a law ensuring that gay rights are now protected ?

There is nothing wrong with a law ensuring rights are protected, the issue comes from the use or abuse of it. When cases occur in which a law designed to protect people is invoked wrongly because someone doesn't like another persons decision, it causes disgruntlement. It isn't going to make someone suddenly be anti gay/Christian or whatever is relevant to the situation, but it can cause frustration and a lack of interest in understanding - which often results in glib comments that have appeared in this thread, those that made them are unlikely to be homophobes, they are simply frustrated.

In the case of the B&B couple, that is discrimination and without a doubt they were justly pulled up for it.

In the case of the Cake seller, as mentioned, we cannot be sure what truly happened, but based on the details it suggests the Bakers had no issue serving the gay couple, their issue was with the design of a cake - and simply because of the content of the design the situation was escalated.
Had it been any number of other designs which the Bakers were uncomfortable with then nothing would have happened because it wouldn't be considered discrimination, yet because of laws put in place to actually protect against genuine discrimination, this situation has occurred.

Now, one can presume there is more to the story, certainly wouldn't surprise me - I have very little time for Christians with such dated and in my opinion, wrong beliefs, so it could well be that what happened was totally justified. But based on what little we know, I personally just feel what happened is not right - and frankly it pains me to be siding with people who still have the views those Christians had.