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

[ethan]

That definition if discrimination is substantially outdated, and you know it. It is entirely acceptable to question decisions people make in their lives. Sexuality, race, and gender are not choices. Religion is.

If I owned a business where it was pertinent to discriminate based on religion (hell knows why...maybe a science museum refusing campaigning creationists or something) I would certainly fight for my right to discriminate on religious grounds.



Did you make a choice not to be gay? No, I didn't think so.

Yes I did actually as I choose and remain committed to being heterosexual.

 

[batsy]

Once again it's silly season here where the scumbags take over and cause untold disruption and destruction. A cake shop using an ancient book to justify the non-icing of a cake for whatever reasons is not really news imo. Maybe just put up a small sign stating what they don't do. No porn, no gay, no racist etc. Let people vote with their feet, I'm sure they'll see no harm to their trade, not this week anyway

 

[HAz]

Where Bert and Ernie gay?

 

[mrk]

So the cake..... was a lie.

 

[bitslice]

Poor bakers. Didn't a similar thing happen to a hotel or maybe it was a bed and breakfast that refused to book a gay couple?

Yup, although there are many gay-only B&B's in resorts that only allow men to stay.
The key is they don't make a big fuss about it, they just say they are fully booked.

Christians can't help but mention that they are doing this for Baby Jesus, which is why they end up on the wrong side of the law.

 

[cheesyboy]

Yes I did actually as I choose and remain committed to being heterosexual.

So, to repeat my point from earlier;

You mean, you choose to be straight? You're attracted to guys and girls then? But you make a choice to only do the sex with the opposite gender?

So you, y'know, can appreciate the finer points of members of your own sex and could, should the mood take you, really get quite into a bit of same-sex fun? But you've always chosen to keep all that inside, and prefer to stick with opposite sex partners?

Or are you being disingenuous? And people can't actually opt between gay and heterosexual.

 

[dowie]

You draw the line with the law. I'm sure a swastika would be seen as a symbol of racial hatred/inciting hatred so as long as the baker consults the police then there is no problem.

Its also a Buddhist symbol... the baker has hot cross buns in the window and has just made a cake with the Star of David on it for a Jewish person... now a Bhuddist comes in asking for a cake with one of his religious symbols on it....

A bakery is there to serve the whole community and should make any cake they are asked to. If there is a valid legal reason why they can't (copyright, discrimination law, inciting hatred) that is fine and they can refuse on the basis they would be breaking the law if they fulfilled the order.

they're a business taking custom orders... they ought to be able to refuse any commission they want. This isn't the same as refusing to serve gay people in general.

 

[estebanrey]

As unlikely as that scenario is, you need to face the reality of the world. You can't make people think the way you do, with legislation and bullying. Legal strong-arming, pressure groups, etc, so people can only agree with you and everything else is illegal.

That's essentially what you want, under the banner of "equal rights".

Yet you want a world where people who have homophobic views can push gay people out of their communities (or at least stay in the closet) by simply refusing them business (i.e interacting within the community as everyone else does).

You want someone's right to discriminate to be able to be forced onto their customers and for some people (in this case a gay couple) to be denied service.

You don't care about anyone else's rights. Like the right to express their religious beliefs. As soon as their rights are at odds with yours, you want the law to intervene on your side.

When two sets of rights are directly at odds then one has to trump the other. I think it reasonable that someone's right not to be discriminated against overrides someone else's right to discriminate.

Frankly, you can't force things to change and change now. Some people don't like gay marriage. *Deal with it*. Don't think you can bully everybody into going along with something they find offensive.

So if they made the cake it would suddenly change their opinions? They can still be against gay marriage whilst making a cake for a specific order that promotes it. They can hold all the anti-gay opinions they want, they just can't let them affect who they do business with.

*There are other cake shops*.

That isn't sustainable logic though, else you are saying that shops on high streets can discriminate where the only shop in the village can't. Laws have to apply to all shops and not be based on the availability of alternatives and proximity of competition.

True, there probably are people still who find black/white marriage offensive. Of course I'm not condoning this. Personally I don't give a hoot if you're gay either. Knock yourself out. I'd argue there's no religious pretext for that particular one so it would be pure prejudice. But prejudice is part of being human. And you sure as hell can't change it with lawyers.

Murder is part of being human, should we legalise it then?

You could end up putting someone out of business rather than them agreeing to your demands. I guess your reaction to that would be "good riddance".

My reaction would be 'stupid bakery', fighting a legal case and bankrupting themselves over some musings in a 2000 year old book written by nomadic goat herders instead of just making the damn cake.

 

[HAz]

Hold on, so the baker is gay too? So Bert and Ernie are heterosexual right???

 

[GSXRMovistar]

Begs the question with this in mind what would happen if I went into the local Christian church and asked them to perform a service on the teachings of Islam; if they objected should I be seeking to take legal action against them?

Of course not as they have different beliefs and choose to provide services as they choose fit so why should this be any different?

 

[dowie]

It is if those reasons are based on race, sex, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation.

Are you in favour of scrapping employment legislation on the basis that a business should be free to hire/fire whoever they want?

OK so here is a hypothetical religion conflict as posted earlier

Muslim owned bakery employs a Muslim guy to do the cake designs... has some cakes in the window with Islamic symbols etc... Christian comes in asking for a cake with Jesus on the cross on it. The bakery could refuse the work as they don't want to create an image of a prophet... but then they're supposedly discriminating no? The bakery could ask their Muslim employee to create the cake, asking him to create an image of a prophet, but are they not then breaching his religious freedoms by requesting he creates the cake?

Frankly if you're taking on custom work you ought to be able to refuse to take on work which conflicts with your personal views.... whether this is refusing to print UKIP fliers or refusing to create a cake with a message/view on it you can't agree with.

I think refusing to endorse a view, campaign, belief, stance etc... put forth by a particular group is different to simply refusing to sell products or provide any work to people from that group.

 

[HAz]

Oh I've always though what if a scientist cloned me and there was now two of me, if I got my clone to give me some sort of sexual pleasure would that make me gay?

 

[Pudney]

Oh I've always though what if a scientist cloned me and there was now two of me, if I got my clone to give me some sort of sexual pleasure would that make me gay?

Does having a really bendy spine make you gay, or just a bit weird?

 

[ethan]

Or are you being disingenuous? And people can't actually opt between gay and heterosexual.[/QUOTE]

They can and do. But this is perhaps an argument for another time.

 

[FoxEye]

My reaction would be 'stupid bakery', fighting a legal case and bankrupting themselves over some musings in a 2000 year old book written by nomadic goat herders instead of just making the damn cake.

I think this tells us all we need to know.

You have decided that the right to religious expression is worthless, as religion is a scam in your eyes. Your lack of empathy towards religious people is highly ironic, to the extent that you want to persecute them

 

[cheesyboy]

They can and do. But this is perhaps an argument for another time.

You said you choose to be hetero, ergo you recognise that you have gay feelings that you choose not to consumate. Correct?

 

[estebanrey]

Its also a Buddhist symbol... the baker has hot cross buns in the window and has just made a cake with the Star of David on it for a Jewish person... now a Bhuddist comes in asking for a cake with one of his religious symbols on it....

Well a Buddhist would probably opt for Dharmacakra; but I never stated they shouldn't be allowed or refuse to make cakes with Swastikas on. I said if the baker is in any doubt he should seek some legal advice and then only refuse if turns out the symbol/message itself could be defined as illegal. Supporting gay marriage isn't illegal so not comparable to a bakery (after seeking advice) refusing to make a cake with something on it they could get in trouble for.

You can't compare a baker who is anxious about making a certain cake because it could be illegal for him to do so, with one refusing to make one because it goes against his beliefs.

they're a business taking custom orders... they ought to be able to refuse any commission they want. This isn't the same as refusing to serve gay people in general.

I disagree. All businesses must ensure they do not blacklist who they do business with based on outlawed discriminatory reasons.

You can't say "we'll serve gay people, but offer them less choice than heterosexual people". If this bakery refused to make cakes that alluded to any sexual orientation (i.e they refused to make ones with a male and female groom on) then I may support them on the basis they are being equally discriminatory (and therefore paradoxically nondiscriminatory), but they aren't.

 

[Rroff]

Frankly if you're taking on custom work you ought to be able to refuse to take on work which conflicts with your personal views.... whether this is refusing to print UKIP fliers or refusing to create a cake with a message/view on it you can't agree with.

Both of which are ultimately quite petty but I'll defend someone's right to personal belief as long as they don't try to impose that personal belief on someone else.

 

[Phantom Shadow]

You can't say "we'll serve gay people, but offer them less choice than heterosexual people".

If they refused to make a cake with 2 grooms on it, even if a heterosexual person was asking for it to be made then they are providing the same choice to gay and heterosexual people.

 

[estebanrey]

I think this tells us all we need to know.

You have decided that the right to religious expression is worthless, as religion is a scam in your eyes. Your lack of empathy towards religious people is highly ironic, to the extent that you want to persecute them

And you think people should be able to discriminate so long as they have a religious book that tells them they can.

I believe the law should trump religious morality and am proud to do so.

Let me ask you a question, should I be allowed to stab my next door neighbour to death if I see him working on a Sunday? The bible says I should after all and wouldn't charging me for murder and putting me in jail denying be me my 'religious freedom'?

There are hundreds of laws and morals in the Bible that we legislate against, please tell me why you feel this one should be an exception.