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

TheLegendOfMart said:
I have not once mentioned bum sex or said anything about being gay other than once in nearly 1500 posts. I am not defined by where I like to stick my winky.

You seem to have some weird issue/fixation with gay people and what they get up to.

I don't want "special" rights, I just want the same rights that you have when you marry the person you love.
Click to expand...

I am only interested in this topic because I find it outrageous that a bakery was fined and ultimately forced to produce a cake that is against their values and principles. Personally I would have made the cake. I have no problem with gays getting married or requesting gay wedding cakes, although i am against marriage as an institution, but that is another topic.

All i have a problem with is this idea that if one group of people have one set of values and another group doesn't that they can use government and this idea of equality to force the other group to act against their wishes. This should be the at the core of humans rights to act in a way that is in line with your values.


Ok i apologize for making bum sex comments.
 
But what you call "values" are not values. Being homosexual, like being black or white or somewhere inbetween, is something you have absolutely no control over. There are loads of these gay conversion therapy things for Christians, and enormous numbers of people who've been to them come back later saying they've been repressing their sexuality for too long and that they can't do it any more. Even the leaders and the instructors in these places.

You cannot choose your sexuality, so values is entirely the wrong way of thinking about it.
 
i have a lot of pretty liberal irish mates so had only really seen ''vote yes'' stuff on facebook in the run up to this

one of them just shared a link to sinn fein saying ''vote yes for equality'' the comments on there from the vote no lot going mad are like they came straight from the dark ages
 
dirtychinchilla said:
But what you call "values" are not values. Being homosexual, like being black or white or somewhere inbetween, is something you have absolutely no control over. There are loads of these gay conversion therapy things for Christians, and enormous numbers of people who've been to them come back later saying they've been repressing their sexuality for too long and that they can't do it any more. Even the leaders and the instructors in these places.

You cannot choose your sexuality, so values is entirely the wrong way of thinking about it.
Click to expand...

I think it is a bit more complicated than that. I think that expecting people to approve of ones sexual preferences because it is not a choice is a poor argument. Where would you draw the line? Without going in to specifics, should religious people respect people just because of their sexual activity because it is not a choice or is homosexuality different in this regard as opposed to other sexual preferences that are less socially acceptable at this time?

Then i would like to make the distinction between being against something and not agreeing with it. I think its reasonable to expect people at this point in time to not be against homosexuality, in the sense of wanting to outlaw it and criminalise it and so on. I don't think it is reasonable however to expect everyone to approve of it on a personal level.

If the whole debate was a about a bakery that was producing anti-gay cakes or cakes supporting an institution that was trying to criminalize homosexuality then i would agree that they are out of line and should be boycotted. I don't see that as the same as a baker taking the personal opinion based on his values that he doesn't want to make a cake that promotes something he doesn't agree with.
 
Last edited:
anything I don't mind said:
I am only interested in this topic because I find it outrageous that a bakery was fined and ultimately forced to produce a cake that is against their values and principles.
Click to expand...

Did they actually produce this cake in the end? Not really followed the story but I thought it was a firm GFY from the bakers hence the fine.
 
cheesyboy said:
Quoting for posterity :D
Click to expand...

I think the point he's trying to make but doing it really badly is that some homosexuals tend to wear there homosexuality on their sleeves for the world to see, certainly that's been my experience knowing quite a few through friends etc.

It becomes their whole world and any time you speak to them they only want to talk about subjects relating to homosexuality or if you try to talk about something else they try to steer it back to that, After a while it does get tiresome as i have never encountered that in any other group (with the possible exception of a couple of militant blacks that i have encountered, but that's much rarer in the UK)
 
anything I don't mind said:
I think it is a bit more complicated than that. I think that expecting people to approve of ones sexual preferences because it is not a choice is a poor argument. Where would you draw the line? Without going in to specifics, should religious people respect people just because of their sexual activity because it is not a choice or is homosexuality different in this regard as opposed to other sexual preferences that are less socially acceptable at this time?

Then i would like to make the distinction between being against something and not agreeing with it. I think its reasonable to expect people at this point in time to not be against homosexuality, in the sense of wanting to outlaw it and criminalise it and so on. I don't think it is reasonable however to expect everyone to approve of it on a personal level.

If the whole debate was a about a bakery that was producing anti-gay cakes or cakes supporting an institution that was trying to criminalize homosexuality then i would agree that they are out of line and should be boycotted. I don't see that as the same as a baker taking the personal opinion based on his values that he doesn't want to make a cake that promotes something he doesn't agree with.
Click to expand...

If your personal value is to disagree with the existence of something, ie I disagree with the existence of females, then that's very short sighted.

It is essential to respect people for who they are by birth. You don't have to respect people for who they are by choice.

robgmun said:
I think the point he's trying to make but doing it really badly is that some homosexuals tend to wear there homosexuality on their sleeves for the world to see, certainly that's been my experience knowing quite a few through friends etc.

It becomes their whole world and any time you speak to them they only want to talk about subjects relating to homosexuality or if you try to talk about something else they try to steer it back to that, After a while it does get tiresome as i have never encountered that in any other group (with the possible exception of a couple of militant blacks that i have encountered, but that's much rarer in the UK)
Click to expand...

You obviously don't know many gay people. I expect you've encountered loads of gay people and haven't known it because they act as you perceive straight people to act. Yes, some are flamboyant and make sure you know that they're gay, but that's potentially not under their control, and if it is, it's no different from religion.

I suspect that the reason why you've never encountered other groups that are so vocal is because gay people still want equal rights. Until they have them, they will continue to be vocal.
 
robgmun said:
I think the point he's trying to make but doing it really badly is that some homosexuals tend to wear there homosexuality on their sleeves for the world to see, certainly that's been my experience knowing quite a few through friends etc.

It becomes their whole world and any time you speak to them they only want to talk about subjects relating to homosexuality or if you try to talk about something else they try to steer it back to that, After a while it does get tiresome as i have never encountered that in any other group (with the possible exception of a couple of militant blacks that i have encountered, but that's much rarer in the UK)
Click to expand...

That isnt an issue of homosexuals, that is an issue of human frailty, it makes that person seem more "important".

Just like some bodybuilders only ever talk about what they do at the gym or arguably a more useful one, a mother talking about her child incessantly.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
You obviously don't know many gay people. I expect you've encountered loads of gay people and haven't known it because they act as you perceive straight people to act. Yes, some are flamboyant and make sure you know that they're gay, but that's potentially not under their control, and if it is, it's no different from religion.
Click to expand...

Not sure how many i need to know before i cannot be considered to not know many gay people, my best friend at school came out around 17 and went heavily into the club scene at that time in the mid-90's, so i met dozens through him and they all tended to be the same as each other. Being gay was the most important thing to them and nothing else mattered and i found most of them to be insufferable. Only one guy seemed more grounded and the others joked about him for "playing it straight" but i found at least i could talk to him on a more normal everyday level.

dirtychinchilla said:
I suspect that the reason why you've never encountered other groups that are so vocal is because gay people still want equal rights. Until they have them, they will continue to be vocal.
Click to expand...

And this goes back to the main question, what rights don't they have? Under the law they are equally protected, and as this case shows probably more protected than other groups
 
Last edited:
anything I don't mind said:
I think it is a bit more complicated than that. I think that expecting people to approve of ones sexual preferences because it is not a choice is a poor argument. Where would you draw the line? Without going in to specifics, should religious people respect people just because of their sexual activity because it is not a choice or is homosexuality different in this regard as opposed to other sexual preferences that are less socially acceptable at this time?

Then i would like to make the distinction between being against something and not agreeing with it. I think its reasonable to expect people at this point in time to not be against homosexuality, in the sense of wanting to outlaw it and criminalise it and so on. I don't think it is reasonable however to expect everyone to approve of it on a personal level.

If the whole debate was a about a bakery that was producing anti-gay cakes or cakes supporting an institution that was trying to criminalize homosexuality then i would agree that they are out of line and should be boycotted. I don't see that as the same as a baker taking the personal opinion based on his values that he doesn't want to make a cake that promotes something he doesn't agree with.
Click to expand...

This is actually the first thing you've said that I feel is a reasonable arguement. It is all very well people mentioning 'no choice' and listing examples of others who have no choice and therefore all should be accepting, yet not surprisingly others with no choice that are not considered socially acceptable are not mentioned. Obviously there are reasons why others with no choice are not considered socially acceptable but I still think it's a relevant fact.

Especially when you consider that according to these Christians beliefs, homosexuality is essentially in the same 'sin' box as other sexual orientations.
So, yes, they must serve the customers for sure (and likely had no issue doing so, believe it or not there are Christians with these beliefs who do actually have gay friends too), but making a cake with a message that is not just distasteful to them, but supports something they see as wrong is a much more grey area to me than simply saying it's discrimination - there are LOTS of cakes I have no doubt they would refuse to make, yet because they are not relating to homosexuality no one would have cared.
 
robgmun said:
I think the point he's trying to make but doing it really badly is that some homosexuals tend to wear there homosexuality on their sleeves for the world to see, certainly that's been my experience knowing quite a few through friends etc.

It becomes their whole world and any time you speak to them they only want to talk about subjects relating to homosexuality or if you try to talk about something else they try to steer it back to that, After a while it does get tiresome as i have never encountered that in any other group (with the possible exception of a couple of militant blacks that i have encountered, but that's much rarer in the UK)
Click to expand...


And I know some Bigots who tend to wear their xenophobia on their sleeves for the world to see, certainly that is my experience knowing a few through OCUK.

It becomes their whole world and any time you speak to them they only want to talk about subjects relating to foreigners. After a while it does get tiresome.
 
The Geezer said:
Read the judgement the Ashers would have provided a cake promoting heterosexual marriage they refused to promote homosexual marriage. Not quite equal is it ?
Click to expand...

Ashers would have likely refused to promote the message of gay marriage if a heterosexual person had requested the same cake.

They were refusing to endorse the message which I think should be respected.

Had they been refusing to serve someone because their sexual orientation then I would consider that wrong and discrimination, but that was not what they did.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
My god, man. Being gay IS NOT about having sex! This is why you can't comprehend it. I'm glad I understand that now.

If you can't get past the understanding that homosexuality is about relationships, not sex, then you're blinding yourself intentionally.
Click to expand...

Actually you're wrong there too. It's more about a physical attraction to males. It doesn't necessarily have to be a relationship. I have a former colleague who openly admitted he was gay. He found the male form to be attractive but had never or had any intention of entering a relationship with a man.
One can have close non sexual relationships with the same gender without being gay. It's called being friends.
 
I'm pleased they are in trouble. The stupidity or the religious never ceases to amaze me.

If not for refusing to make the cake, then for being too stupid to think of a better excuse for not doing it..

'we're fully booked for the next 6 months'

Or even 'it'll cost 6 grand'.. If you don't want to take work on simply price yourself out of the market.

Looks like they've not had thier cake and not eaten it either... I'll get my coat.
 
Last edited:
mattyfez said:
I'm pleased they are in trouble. The stupidity of the gay never ceases to amaze me.

If not for refusing to make the cake, then for being too stupid to think of a better excuse for not doing it..

'we're fully booked for the next 6 months'

Or even 'it'll cost 6 grand'.. If you don't want to take work on simply price yourself out of the market.

Looks like they've not had thier cake and not eaten it either... I'll get my coat.
Click to expand...

Fixed :D
 
mattyfez said:
I'm pleased they are in trouble. The stupidity or the religious never ceases to amaze me.

If not for refusing to make the cake, then for being too stupid to think of a better excuse for not doing it..

'we're fully booked for the next 6 months'

Or even 'it'll cost 6 grand'.. If you don't want to take work on simply price yourself out of the market.

Looks like they've not had thier cake and not eaten it either... I'll get my coat.
Click to expand...




so true in any business if you don't want to take on a client or do a job then you just price it to buggery.


either they go elsewhere or they accept your overinflated quote skim a wedge off the top and subby the job to someone one else
 
Dis86 said:
Actually you're wrong there too. It's more about a physical attraction to males. It doesn't necessarily have to be a relationship. I have a former colleague who openly admitted he was gay. He found the male form to be attractive but had never or had any intention of entering a relationship with a man.
One can have close non sexual relationships with the same gender without being gay. It's called being friends.
Click to expand...

I love it when straight people talk for me knowing nothing about homosexuality other than anecdotal evidence from their "gay friends".

Of course being gay means being physically attracted to males/females depending on your gender, just like heterosexuality means being attracted to the opposite gender.................
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom