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

spoffle said:
There's a distinct difference though, having that persuasion doesn't mean they were actually act upon it, which causes actual issues itself.

People can't seek help for getting desires they consciously don't want, because of the way society responds.

When a paediatrician gets mobbed by the local troggos because they're so thick that they think it means pedophile, you can kinda understand why someone who has those sort of issues might not want to try and get help.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Is a paedo still a paedo if they never act on their feelings?

I don't know.

I was referring to those who act or those who support (by ordering a Paedo cake, for example - since that's where this started)
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
Fair enough but they are still governed by equality laws....
Click to expand...

Of course they are. My point is generally that, if you're gay and you want a cake baked with a gay slogan on it, are you going to want someone to bake it who doesn't really want to, but has to because the law says so?

In that, would you in good concious feel that it's your right to impose that? Or would you just go elsewhere, where they actually want to bake it, and aren't being forced to?

I'd say, even from a completely selfish point of view, I wouldn't want them to because it could possibly compromise the quality if they aren't happy making it, they might not put their all in to it.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
Denying to make a cake for a gay guy because he is gay is against the freaking law.
Click to expand...

Actually i think you might be the dense one because that is not what happened. They even said that they would make the cake without the message. They even said that they wouldn't make the cake with the message for a straight person. The point was that they didn't agree with the message, not that they didn't want to do business with a gay guy.

The facts aside. Personally i think business should be able to discriminate based on any factors including sex/race/religion and so on. The government does not need to force business to not discriminate as the market can deal with that.

1) the business will suffer a loss in market share if they restrict their market based on arbitrary characteristics.
2) the business will suffer a stain on their reputation and people will potentially boycott them.
3) people who were not even affected by the discrimination who are also offended by the business turning away X could also boycott them further reducing their market share and reputation.

These factors alone will work as a market incentive for businesses to not discriminate but at the same time allow for business to discriminate (and suffer the market consequences) if they decide.

Discrimination in such a way only becomes oppression or a problem when the service or business is mandatory through government control.

ie if government control the public transport and prevent competition, it would be unethical for them to discriminate because it is a public service.


TheLegendOfMart said:
They aren't a private business. They are a chain that serves the public, the same public who are protected by equality laws. Christ.
Click to expand...


emm no, they are a private business. Whether they are a chain or not makes no difference. A public service is defined as a government service. A private business does not become a public service just because there customers are members of the public.

Equality laws are the actual oppression in this scenario.
 
Last edited:
cheesyboy said:
Well, yes. Is a paedo still a paedo if they never act on their feelings?

I don't know.

I was referring to those who act or those who support (by ordering a Paedo cake, for example - since that's where this started)
Click to expand...

Well, I'd say they are. Is some one gay, even if they don't act on their feelings and they don't want to be?

No, I'm not actually saying they're comparable in that sort of way. Just that it's about the component of attraction.
 
Dis86 said:
I'll state again. Because you can't read. Finding children to be sexualy attractive is not illegal.
Click to expand...

The act IS illegal though and not protected under Equality Act..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 
anything I don't mind said:
Actually i think you might be the dense one because that is not what happened. They even said that they would make the cake without the message. They even said that they wouldn't make the cake with the message for a straight person. The point was that they didn't agree with the message, not that they didn't want to do business with a gay guy.

The facts aside. Personally i think business should be able to discriminate based on any factors including sex/race/religion and so on. The government does not need to force business to not discriminate as the market can deal with that.

1) the business will suffer a loss in market share if they restrict their market based on arbitrary characteristics.
2) the business will suffer a stain on their reputation and people will potentially boycott them.
3) people who were not even affected by the discrimination who are also offended by the business turning away X could also boycott them further reducing their market share and reputation.

These factors alone will work as a market incentive for businesses to not discriminate but at the same time allow for business to discriminate (and suffer the market consequences) if they decide.

Discrimination in such a way only becomes oppression or a problem when the service or business is mandatory through government control.

ie if government control the public transport and prevent competition, it would be unethical for them to discriminate because it is a public service.





emm no, they are a private business. Whether they are a chain or not makes no difference. A public service is defined as a government service. A private business does not become a public service just because there customers are members of the public.

Equality laws are the actual oppression in this scenario.
Click to expand...



I don't think the government should make murder illegal, the market can deal with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom