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

[The Geezer]

No we don't all know.

These very words in fact indicate that you are the bigot.

Bigotry :

- stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Your intolerance of a belief that differs from your own seems stubborn to me. It certainly looks like you are bigot.

Careful. you don't know me or lived my life ! I can't believe in this age people live by a mantra of "I can discriminate against it, if I don't like it" we are supposed live in a civilised society.

My point remains regarding the OP topic - the Ashers broke the law by discriminating against some members of our society

 

[cheesyboy]

Totally jumped into this thread with no prior reading (probably a good thing).

I'm fully in support of gay rights, and I consider myself an antitheist. That said, in this case I don't see what the issue is. From what I understand, the bible bakery was asked to make a cake that supported gay rights? If that's the case then why should they be expected to create something they don't want to? It's like asking a painter to paint a picture they don't want to. Regardless of the reasoning behind it, they should be free to create the cake art they want to.

Had they utterly refused to serve gay people, then that would be a different case entirely, but I'm sure that's not the case.

Would it be ok if they didn't want to make a wedding cake showing people of different races getting married? Would it be ok to turn that down? That's not discriminatory, bigoted, or simply unfair/upsetting?

(That's obviously not a biblical thing, but I'm questioning how far your "why should they be expected to create something they don't want to?" stance goes, and where you draw the line)

 

[Illgresi]

People are entrenched on either side. Sometimes that's because they know their **** and they're actually right...

That quote, in and of itself proves you are a bigot. Projecting that the view of any subjective point of view as correct makes you a bigot. Don't worry though, I think we're far too intolerant of bigotry in this country. Bigotry is a natural human trait. Lets accept it, and discuss it properly, instead of being bound by Blairite political correctness.

IMO.

 

[spudbynight]

Careful. you don't know me or lived my life !

My point remains regarding the OP topic - the Ashers broke the law by discriminating against some members of our society

Are you saying you aren't intolerant of someone else's beliefs? Being able to justify your intolerance to yourself doesn't stop it being intolerance.

 

[cheesyboy]

That quote, in and of itself proves you are a bigot. Projecting that the view of any subjective point of view as correct makes you a bigot. Don't worry though, I think we're far too intolerant of bigotry in this country. Bigotry is a natural human trait. Lets accept it, and discuss it properly, instead of being bound by Blairite political correctness.

IMO.

Why?

There are correct points made on both sides of the argument, by those capable of critical reasoning (there are some points, made quite by chance, by those incapable of critical reasoning too ). That doesn't mean they're right overall.

Most of the posts in the thread are not made by people who can grasp all, or even more than one or two, of the factors.

 

[spudbynight]

Totally jumped into this thread with no prior reading (probably a good thing).

I'm fully in support of gay rights, and I consider myself an antitheist. That said, in this case I don't see what the issue is. From what I understand, the bible bakery was asked to make a cake that supported gay rights? If that's the case then why should they be expected to create something they don't want to? It's like asking a painter to paint a picture they don't want to. Regardless of the reasoning behind it, they should be free to create the cake art they want to.

Had they utterly refused to serve gay people, then that would be a different case entirely, but I'm sure that's not the case.

That is the sort of response that we need in a modern tolerant society. I disagree with you on the subject of "gay rights" but I accept your right to express those beliefs.

We have a history of reasonable accommodation in this country. I think if we look back at the Quakers during WWI we can see that. The Quakers who (at the time) believed in non violence were allowed to avoid conscription to fight during the war. Refusal to fight at the time would have been seen as beyond the pale. A reasonable accommodation was found and they were allowed to give service in non violent ways.

Reasonable accommodation is a "British Value". It is such as shame that we have lost sight of that. In our desire to be seen as more tolerant we have become less so.

 

[Illgresi]

Would it be ok if they didn't want to make a wedding cake showing people of different races getting married? Would it be ok to turn that down? That's not discriminatory, bigoted, or simply unfair/upsetting?

(That's obviously not a biblical thing, but I'm questioning how far your "why should they be expected to create something they don't want to?" stance goes, and where you draw the line)

The difference as I understand it (and maybe the source I read from was biased, I can't remember), is that they were asked to create a cake that promoted homosexuality. For myself, that wouldn't even be an issue, but for some people it is. If someone asked them to create a cake that promoted interracial marriage, and they didn't believe that was correct, I still see no issue in them rejecting the business.

Rejecting the business of someone from an ethnic minority, or from a sexulity minority is of course incorrect. Rejecting business on moral grounds, albeit archaic and ridiculous, should be up to the proprietor imo.

 

[estebanrey]

Totally jumped into this thread with no prior reading (probably a good thing).

I'm fully in support of gay rights, and I consider myself an antitheist. That said, in this case I don't see what the issue is. From what I understand, the bible bakery was asked to make a cake that supported gay rights? If that's the case then why should they be expected to create something they don't want to? It's like asking a painter to paint a picture they don't want to. Regardless of the reasoning behind it, they should be free to create the cake art they want to.

Had they utterly refused to serve gay people, then that would be a different case entirely, but I'm sure that's not the case.

You need to read what the Judge said, which in short was that because Ashers would make cakes supporting heterosexual marriage they can't use your get out clause. The only difference between gay marriage and "traditional" marriage is the former involves gay people.

Ergo, they are denying a service to some sets of couples based purely on their sexual orientation.

If Ashers didn't make any wedding cakes, then your line of logic would work.

 

[The Geezer]

Are you saying you aren't intolerant of someone else's beliefs? Being able to justify your intolerance to yourself doesn't stop it being intolerance.

I'm more than happy for people to practice whatever faith they want as long as it doesn't infringe on other members of society to freely go about their lives. I for one celebrate the Equality Act as it finally gave a voice to those who were once denied to live a full life.

 

[Illgresi]

You need to read what the Judge said, which in short was that because Ashers would make cakes supporting heterosexual marriage they can't use your get out clause. The only difference between gay marriage and "traditional" marriage is the former involves gay people.

Ergo, they are denying a service to some sets of couples based purely on their sexual orientation.

If Ashers didn't make any wedding cakes, then your line of logic would work.

As I said, I jumped in without the full facts. I presented an opinion based on the vagaries of what I know about the case.

If the case is simply that they wouldn't make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, then I condemn them as bigots. That said, I still think in a free society they should have the right to do so, unless they break the law (I believe the courts have now decided they have done).

My problem with that is, that it is a contravention of our supposed freedom of speech (read action). However abhorrent, they should be allowed to do so imo.

I have a number of close gay friends, and while I haven't taken their opinion from them on this subject, I can confidently say that they wouldn't give two ***** about a bakery that rejected them. There are more bakeries in the world, and more people that will accept them.

 

[cheesyboy]

The difference as I understand it (and maybe the source I read from was biased, I can't remember), is that they were asked to create a cake that promoted homosexuality. For myself, that wouldn't even be an issue, but for some people it is. If someone asked them to create a cake that promoted interracial marriage, and they didn't believe that was correct, I still see no issue in them rejecting the business.

Rejecting the business of someone from an ethnic minority, or from a sexulity minority is of course incorrect. Rejecting business on moral grounds, albeit archaic and ridiculous, should be up to the proprietor imo.

Well, it promoted equal rights for homosexuals, rather than promoting outright homosexuality.

A great many of the dissenting posts in this thread have involved people misunderstanding this aspect in some way - there are so many spurious "equivalent" examples trotted out about "what if" someone asked a baker to make something which denigrated someone, or which promoted violence or crime or bigotry. It misses the point entirely.

Promoting equal rights isn't a slight on anyone. It's a promotion of a positive, not a reinforcement of a negative.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Make no mistake, this sort of carry on is NOT about discrimination. It is about the militant suppression of people with different views.

What and Christians don't militantly suppress millions of homosexuals just because it says so in a book?

What does two blokes getting married do to a marriage of two straight christan people?

Why is it ok that Christans can pick and choose out of a made up story book what they want to force on other people?

 

[.Lethal]

What and Christians don't militantly suppress millions of homosexuals just because it says so in a book?

What does two blokes getting married do to a marriage of two straight christan people?

Why is it ok that Christans can pick and choose out of a made up story book what they want to force on other people?

Not all Christians try to suppress homosexuals.

Two blokes getting married in some cases offend those who hold the strongest beliefs in their faith. There are many many things in today's society that do the same thing which we accept.

Criticising a belief as a made up story doesn't reinforce your comments, it makes you look foolish for dismissing something many believe in as such.

A judge ruling doesn't change anything. A Christian with the sternest of beliefs should have the choice to accept or decline who they want if it goes against their beliefs. This decision won't make Christians accept it, however it will only make things more difficult when their being forced to do something that they don't want too.

I'm an atheist, I really don't care what others believe in or what they do if it makes them happy or gives them a sense of existence. I believe that gays can be apart of our society should they choose too and that Christians should also be able to decline customers should they feel it goes against what they believe in.

There will always be an indifference in society and there will never be a universal common ground where everyone gets along.

Didn't read much of this thread but wanted to post my opinion on the OP and last few posts here.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Yeah and not all homosexuals try and suppress Christians, I find the militant homosexuals line offensive as I don't give a **** what Christians believe in and I wouldn't protest to try and abolish religion or Christianity.

Two guys getting married may offend people but what gives them the right to protest against the marriage or civil rights of said guys purely because of whatever lines in the bible they pick and choose to follow or not.

Yeah I am foolish because I criticise a book that has been written by a man and has been translated and re-translated so many times into and from so many different languages and maybe even changed by the person re-writing the book because of their own beliefs.

I never said god doesn't exist, I am agnostic. I just take exception at someone using a fictional book to dictate my life just because it makes them feel bad.

 

[Tefal]

If the case is simply that they wouldn't make a wedding cake for a black couple, then I condemn them as bigots. That said, I still think in a free society they should have the right to do so.

still think they should have the right?

 

[.Lethal]

Yeah and not all homosexuals try and suppress Christians, I find the militant homosexuals line offensive as I don't give a **** what Christians believe in and I wouldn't protest to try and abolish religion or Christianity.

Offensive? Yeah I suppose some will take it that way but frankly it doesn't bother me, it's two different communities clashing in a an unpleasant way, the fact it went to court only made things more hostile for both sides.

Two guys getting married may offend people but what gives them the right to protest against the marriage of said guys purely because of whatever lines in the bible they pick and choose to follow or not.

You asked a question and basically answered it yourself.

Yeah I am foolish because I criticise a book that has been written by a man and has been translated and re-translated so many times into and from so many different languages and maybe even changed by the person re-writing the book because of their own beliefs.

I never said god doesn't exist, I am agnostic. I just take exception at someone using a fictional book to dictate my life just because it makes them feel bad.

Nobody is trying to dictate your life, there are many religions people choose to follow. You might get some knock on your door preaching what they believe in but it's not to hurt or upset others. It's something people choose to believe in, it gives them purpose, meaning and happiness and who are we to take that away from them? Regardless of our own belief we should accept these things.

The problem here is that Religious beliefs have clashed with gay rights because a customer wouldn't accept no for an answer and go some place else. And if they feel so strongly against that they take it up with the legal process, which they did and won. It doesn't mean Christians are wrong, it says that regardless of your personal beliefs you should put it aside and serve all customers equally.

I feel said customers should have just gone some place else and bought their cake, but they went to court and won instead. Good for them

 

[Felon]

The problem here is that Religious beliefs have clashed with gay rights because a customer wouldn't accept no for an answer and go some place else. And if they feel so strongly against that they take it up with the legal process, which they did and won. It doesn't mean Christians are wrong, it says that regardless of your personal beliefs you should put it aside and serve all customers equally.

I wouldn't say that religious belief clashed with gay rights - it was simply the case that the owners of the bakery were breaking the law, and the law takes precedence over religious belief.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Nobody is trying to dictate your life, there are many religions people choose to follow. You might get some knock on your door preaching what they believe in but it's not to hurt or upset others. It's something people choose to believe in, it gives them purpose, meaning and happiness and who are we to take that away from them? Regardless of our own belief we should accept these things.

The problem here is that Religious beliefs have clashed with gay rights because a customer wouldn't accept no for an answer and go some place else. And if they feel so strongly against that they take it up with the legal process, which they did and won. It doesn't mean Christians are wrong, it says that regardless of your personal beliefs you should put it aside and serve all customers equally.

I feel said customers should have just gone some place else and bought their cake, but they went to court and won instead. Good for them

It's not just about the cake. Christianity rules the country, they are dictating that I cannot get married to the man I love because they think it somehow devalues their own marriage because THEIR God thinks Homosexuality is a sin.

I think all the straight couples who get married and then divorced devalues marriage more than any gay couple wanting to get married.

Look at waste of skin celebrities, how many kids by how many different men by how many different marriages has Katie Price had?

 

[Illgresi]

Well, it promoted equal rights for homosexuals, rather than promoting outright homosexuality.

A great many of the dissenting posts in this thread have involved people misunderstanding this aspect in some way - there are so many spurious "equivalent" examples trotted out about "what if" someone asked a baker to make something which denigrated someone, or which promoted violence or crime or bigotry. It misses the point entirely.

Promoting equal rights isn't a slight on anyone. It's a promotion of a positive, not a reinforcement of a negative.

Sorry, just spent an hour of supreme exam procrastination writing an essay in the speakers corner.

I fully agree with your points. However, in a truly free society, the socially inept still must have their right to freedom of expression.

Before it comes back at me, yes, I do believe people should be allowed to express homophobic, racist and other antagonistic views. It is the price we must pay for a free society.

 

[V4NT0M]

I feel said customers should have just gone some place else and bought their cake, but they went to court and won instead. Good for them

IDK, the problem here for me isn't right or wrong, it isn't about homosexuality. It's purely Hypocritical to me...

"You should accept who I am and make me a cake, but I won't accept who you are and let you not make the cake"

I'm not bothered either way if a cake shop does or does not want to make me a cake, as many people have said I would go elsewhere and vote with my wallet. But if I expected to have the right of freedom to have whatever cake made I wanted I would also expect to give the freedom to others to refuse that.