Ukip offers legal protection to Christians who oppose same-sex marriage

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1389/61/1389614168531.jpg


Ukip has released a mini-manifesto for Christians, saying it would extend protection to those who want to oppose gay marriage because of their religious beliefs.

The document is published on the websites of some candidates and the election page of Christian Concern, a group that is against abortion and same-sex marriage.

The manifesto for Christians says Ukip would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.


The manifesto says: “We will not repeal the legislation, as it would be grossly unfair and unethical to ‘un-marry’ loving couples or restrict further marriages, but we will not require churches to marry same-sex couples. We will also extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue.”


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage

(good news for bakers and printers)


another Tibb vote winner?

[Shaun]

And you said it was just immigration policies that we disliked ;)

[Crimson Dynamo]

And you said it was just immigration policies that we disliked ;)

:fist:

[the truth]

great policy fair play. the reverse bigotry is totally out of hand....death threats and violence for anyone who has a different opinion is bang out of order

[Northern Monkey]

Well it should be up to the particular churches if they want to offer gay marriage.

[the truth]

Well it should be up to the particular churches if they want to offer gay marriage.it should be but anyone who opposes gets death threats or attacked by these pro gay rights hypocrites who previously moaned about the violence against gay people

[Niamh.]

So UKIP was against legalising gay marriage then? I don't think any of the main political parties here are actually campaigning against it for the upcoming referendum, they're all in the Yes camp which is great

[Crimson Dynamo]

They are going after the older white haired church going vote before they die

[Iceman]

So UKIP was against legalising gay marriage then? I don't think any of the main political parties here are actually campaigning against it for the upcoming referendum, they're all in the Yes camp which is great

The latest updates indicate a yes vote by the way. http://www.redcresearch.ie/blog/referendum-not-secure#sthash.1GsHvO8g.dpbs

[the truth]

They are going after the older white haired church going vote before they die before they get murdered by radical gay activists

[Tom4784]

Just another reason not to vote for that backwards party.

[Withano]

Bring back homophobia. Got my vote. just kidding, I'm not a ****

[Kyle]

before they get murdered by radical gay activists

It's historically Christians who murder anyone with opposing views.

[the truth]

It's historically Christians who murder anyone with opposing views. youre lying again:nono:

[Kyle]

youre lying again:nono:

Oh you got me :fan:

[arista]

Farage is on STV

Doing the political broadcast
UK has fecking Labour

[joeysteele]

Just another reason not to vote for that backwards party.

I am for sure glad I am not.

[Nedusa]

Oh here we go again , this subject has been debated to death on here but again I make the point what does "legalising Gay marriage" actually mean ?

In law both gay and straight couples can marry in any building they want as long as they obtain a marriage licence and observe all other legal requirements.

That is Marriage... That's it the rest is down to personal religious preference , so if you are a member of a church that at its core does not marry gay couples then that is that...!!!

Go find a church that marries gay couples or start one of your own, but you will not and can not force a group of like minded people to change their views because someone tells them to.

It won't work, won't wash never gonna happen so move on and let these backward thinking bigoted people carry on with their own church . Who wants to be in a church like that anyway.

That's it really in a nutshell , gay marriage is a meaningless term as all marriage is allowed in the UK .

Religious wedding ceremonies well that's another issue and one that is best left to individuals.

[joeysteele]

Oh here we go again , this subject has been debated to death on here but again I make the point what does "legalising Gay marriage" actually mean ?

In law both gay and straight couples can marry in any building they want as long as they obtain a marriage licence and observe all other legal requirements.

That is Marriage... That's it the rest is down to personal religious preference , so if you are a member of a church that at its core does not marry gay couples then that is that...!!!

Go find a church that marries gay couples or start one of your own, but you will not and can not force a group of like minded people to change their views because someone tells them to.

It won't work, won't wash never gonna happen so move on and let these backward thinking bigoted people carry on with their own church . Who wants to be in a church like that anyway.

That's it really in a nutshell , gay marriage is a meaningless term as all marriage is allowed in the UK .

Religious wedding ceremonies well that's another issue and one that is best left to individuals.


It isn't just about churches however, they are talking about people exercising their christian,well whatever they are as to views,since christianity is really about no judging or condemning,in business and the workplace.

You have say a manager who thinks gay relationships are wrong,his views will be permitted to be 'used' against said individuals.
people in business, such as B&B's Hotels, would be then allowed to refuse the custom of said individuals.

That is very backward looking and unjust too in my view,such people, with such prejudices should not have authority over others or be allowed in a business either where they invite the public, as to custom.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Can gay couples get married in mosques?

[Livia]

So UKIP will protect Christians from being forced to marry gay couples. What's the problem with that? There are some Christians who will marry gay people but the church should not be forced. Otherwise you're also going to have to force the Jews, the Hindus, the Sikhs the Muslims et al. And good luck with that.

[Nedusa]

It isn't just about churches however, they are talking about people exercising their christian,well whatever they are as to views,since christianity is really about no judging or condemning,in business and the workplace.

You have say a manager who thinks gay relationships are wrong,his views will be permitted to be 'used' against said individuals.
people in business, such as B&B's Hotels, would be then allowed to refuse the custom of said individuals.

That is very backward looking and unjust too in my view,such people, with such prejudices should not have authority over others or be allowed in a business either where they invite the public, as to custom.

I agree with you Joey, but my point was about the way the state tries to force a church to change its view through legislation it won't work , small minded bigoted prejudiced people will always find a way to protect their views using religious dogma when it suits them.

But I agree with your point gay relationships are just relationships like straight relationships , there should be no distinction and certainly no prejudice.

If there is then the law needs to come down heavily on the person or persons who are discriminating.

[Nedusa]

So UKIP will protect Christians from being forced to marry gay couples. What's the problem with that? There are some Christians who will marry gay people but the church should not be forced. Otherwise you're also going to have to force the Jews, the Hindus, the Sikhs the Muslims et al. And good luck with that.

Christians are not forced to marry anybody.....!!!!

I don't really understand this whole UKIP episode, which upsets me a little as I do support UKIP ...??

[Livia]

Christians are not forced to marry anybody.....!!!!

I don't really understand this whole UKIP episode, which upsets me a little as I do support UKIP ...??

No, I know they're not forced, but there are some quarters who think the next step is to allow gay people to marry in church. Like I said, some vicars will do it of their own volition and good for them. But the church should not be forced. I don't know why they're making it an issue right now, it'll lose them more votes than it'll get them, I think.

On the upside, I've been asked to be 'best woman' at my friend's marriage next year and I predict it will be an extravaganza!

[Cherie]

They are going after the older white haired church going vote before they die

I thought you weren't into the Church :suspect:

[Nedusa]

No, I know they're not forced, but there are some quarters who think the next step is to allow gay people to marry in church. Like I said, some vicars will do it of their own volition and good for them. But the church should not be forced. I don't know why they're making it an issue right now, it'll lose them more votes than it'll get them, I think.

On the upside, I've been asked to be 'best woman' at my friend's marriage next year and I predict it will be an extravaganza!

Hope you have a faaaaaabulous time........:cheer2::cheer2:

[Niamh.]

The latest updates indicate a yes vote by the way. http://www.redcresearch.ie/blog/referendum-not-secure#sthash.1GsHvO8g.dpbs


I'd be shocked if it wasn't a landslide victory for the Yes vote tbh

[Iceman]

I'd be shocked if it wasn't a landslide victory for the Yes vote tbh

I'm off down the country early on the 22nd. I'll have to vote earlier :fist:

I can't see it not being passed, but I'd never be as arrogant as to not vote.

[Niamh.]

I'm off down the country early on the 22nd. I'll have to vote earlier :fist:



I can't see it not being passed, but I'd never be as arrogant as to not vote.


Oh absolutely Eoin, you have to vote, it's one of the most important votes we'll ever vote for imo, you can't be complacent

[Iceman]

Yeah a bit of perspective with a kind of comedic twist is the video Brendan o Carroll did on it. I can't link it but it's on Facebook.

I mean the importance part.

[Niamh.]

Yeah a bit of perspective with a kind of comedic twist is the video Brendan o Carroll did on it. I can't link it but it's on Facebook.

I mean the importance part.


I'll have a look for it in a minute, seems to have almost everyone's backing anyway, it's great how far our country has come actually in such a short space of time. Since the church lost its hold really

[Mystic Mock]

Tbf I do agree with UKIP that Christians shouldn't be forced into marrying people that they don't want to do because it goes against their Religious beliefs.

However this party is very sinister to me, and I'm not sure if that's the end of it on this discussion really.

[Mystic Mock]

Can gay couples get married in mosques?

Yeah if you're a brave ****er.:laugh:

[Mitchell]

Can us gays have extra protection from these people?

[kirklancaster]

"It follows a furore over a Christian bakery in Northern Ireland which was taken to court accused of discrimination after cancelling an order to make a cake featuring the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie arm in arm under the slogan “support gay marriage”.
That case led to attempts to change the law in the Province to allow individuals and businesses an exclusion from discrimination law to enable them to refuse to provide services if they go against their religious convictions."

GROAN :sleep::sleep::sleep:

Where does all this B.S end?

Should a Jewish PRINTING FIRM be FORCED by law to accept an order from a NEO-NAZI Organisation to print leaflets extolling the virtues of Adolf Hitler and denying the Holocaust?

Should a Bakery owned by BLACKS similarly be forced by law to HAVE to bake an anniversary cake for the Klu Klux Klan replete with a blackman hanging from a tree in glorious technicoloured icing?
Where does this all end?

Will we see good natured LGBT social events FORCED by law to allow known HOMOPHOBIC troublemaker thugs in?

I have associated with Gay people for decades, attended 'All Dayer's' and 'All Nighter's' at Gay Nightclubs from 'Heroes' in Manchester, to 'Rockshots' in Leeds, to 'Heaven' in London, ACTIVELY supported and CAMPAIGNED for 'CHE' - the' Campaign For Homosexual Equality' back in the 80's, and still have very close and dear Gay friends, but this is all BS. - a political 'Mountain out of a molehill' being seized upon by anti-UKIP bodies for their own ends to make political capital out of.

The simple truth is; that no one should be FORCED to do anything by law if it is in genuine conflict with their beliefs - religious or otherwise - if there are viable alternatives available.

Gays - like 'Straights' can marry in a Register Office or the Elvis' (non) Chapel in Vegas or their own front room.

If rebuffed by ANYONE, most Gays who I know would SCATHINGLY and WITHERINGLY tell them what to do with their 'Service' then turn on their heels and go elsewhere.

[Niamh.]

Kirk, the examples you just used are not even comparable, expecting anyone to accept an order containing slogans or messages that incite hatred like the Nazis or Ku Klux Klan would not only be unacceptable but I assume against the law. It's pretty insulting to gay people to compare them to groups like that :/

[kirklancaster]

Kirk, the examples you just used are not even comparable, expecting anyone to accept an order containing slogans or messages that incite hatred like the Nazis or Ku Klux Klan would not only be unacceptable but I assume against the law. It's pretty insulting to gay people to compare them to groups like that :/

With respect Niamh - I'm NOT comparing Gay people to groups like Nazis and the KKK, I'm comparing the principle of using a law to compel people to accommodate business, custom or practices from others if to do so genuinely offends their principles or beliefs, especially when alternatives exist.

The cake I quoted actually contained a slogan: 'Support Gay Marriage' which could be considered as incendiary and offensive to some people as any of the slogans in my hypothesis above would be to others, but it's just madness to run and try and legislate for things like this when alternatives are available.

.

[Kizzy]

It would be a huge backwards step, in effect all it would do would allow bigots a get out clause.
For actual practicing Christians I can understand they feel conflicted however and it is up to them to wrestle with their own consciences I guess :/

[Niamh.]

With respect Niamh - I'm NOT comparing Gay people to groups like Nazis and the KKK, I'm comparing the principle of using a law to compel people to accommodate business, custom or practices from others if to do so genuinely offends their principles or beliefs, especially when alternatives exist.

I understand that but it's not like for like when you're using hate groups as your example. When you say alternatives exist, I doubt anyone at all, not just Jewish owned companies would print posters supporting Hitler and the Nazis, they would more likely report them to the Police so the question you ask "Should a Jewish PRINTING FIRM be FORCED by law to accept an order from a NEO-NAZI Organisation to print leaflets extolling the virtues of Adolf Hitler and denying the Holocaust?" is in no way strengthening your case in regards to this imo

[Crimson Dynamo]

Has anyone actually said - like the Pope, Arch of Canterbury etc


God does not agree with homosexuals

or

Yes he does


For it seems that its a little vague, how hard is it to find out if it is policy or not?

[Tom4784]

Has anyone actually said - like the Pope, Arch of Canterbury etc


God does not agree with homosexuals

or

Yes he does


For it seems that its a little vague, how hard is it to find out if it is policy or not?

Everything in the bible is vague and almost every passage in it contradicts another. You ultimately have to pick and choose what parts you want to follow and believe in which makes people who use religion to justify their discriminatory behavior scum.

[kirklancaster]

Has anyone actually said - like the Pope, Arch of Canterbury etc


God does not agree with homosexuals

or

Yes he does


For it seems that its a little vague, how hard is it to find out if it is policy or not?

It doesn't mention the subject much in the Bible, but does condemn it where it does.

This subject is only really given any thought by Christian Fundamentalist Extremists and it is barmy to strictly adhere to edicts such as this today. IMHO.

https://carm.org/bible-homosexuality

[Kizzy]

It's a ploy to bring back section 28.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/truth-ukip-racist-jibes-anti-gay-3558058

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/05/18/ukip-councillor-it-is-a-tragedy-section-28-was-repealed-gays-want-to-destroy-the-traditional-family/

[kirklancaster]

I thought you weren't into the Church :suspect:

He'd like to be if her first name was Charlotte, Cherie. :laugh:

[Withano]

I understand that but it's not like for like when you're using hate groups as your example. When you say alternatives exist, I doubt anyone at all, not just Jewish owned companies would print posters supporting Hitler and the Nazis, they would more likely report them to the Police so the question you ask "Should a Jewish PRINTING FIRM be FORCED by law to accept an order from a NEO-NAZI Organisation to print leaflets extolling the virtues of Adolf Hitler and denying the Holocaust?" is in no way strengthening your case in regards to this imo

Thats exactly what I was thinking. Gay rights are legal and anti-semitism and racism will get you in trouble. So they're nowhere near the same principals. Terrible examples.

He compared a Christians right to be homophobic to a Jewish persons right to dislike anti-semitism and a black persons right to dislike the KKK! his examples are actually the complete opposite to each other

[kirklancaster]

Thats exactly what I was thinking. Gay rights are legal and anti-semitism and racism will get you in trouble. So they're nowhere near the same principals. Terrible examples.

He compared a Christians right to be homophobic to a Jewish persons right to dislike anti-semitism and a black persons right to dislike the KKK! his examples are actually the complete opposite to each other

OK - I concede that I could have picked better examples but I'm sure you understand the point I was making.

[Kizzy]

It's going to be hard to legislate as religious observances are included in the hate laws I thought so won't they conflict with the rights of homosexuals to marry in church?
Personally I think it's all bunkum and wish there were no churches but there you go...

[kirklancaster]

It's going to be hard to legislate as religious observances are included in the hate laws I thought so won't they conflict with the rights of homosexuals to marry in church?
Personally I think it's all bunkum and wish there were no churches but there you go...

Maybe everyone who cares for Gay Rights should start having REAL perspective and instead of wishing there were no CHURCHES start PRAYING that the day doesn't come when you get your wish and there will be no Churches ONLY MOSQUES, because the day that happens - and it 1,000% will - there will also BE NO GAYS.

[Withano]

OK - I concede that I could have picked better examples but I'm sure you understand the point I was making.

Was your point that business owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone? Cos I'd agree to that to a certain extent but not to the extent where you can discriminate against a person openly because of who they are.. I'm more on a 'not selling a drunk person more beer' level.

[Kizzy]

Maybe everyone who cares for Gay Rights should start having REAL perspective and instead of wishing there were no CHURCHES start PRAYING that the day doesn't come when you get your wish and there will be no Churches ONLY MOSQUES, because the day that happens - and it 1,000% will - there will also BE NO GAYS.

I don't like mosques either.

[joeysteele]

Tbf I do agree with UKIP that Christians shouldn't be forced into marrying people that they don't want to do because it goes against their Religious beliefs.

However this party is very sinister to me, and I'm not sure if that's the end of it on this discussion really.

You are right,there is a sinister dark side to this party,not as bad as it was but still enough hopefully to turn more voters off them than on them.

Like you I wouldn't trust them,Nigel Farage maybe I'd trust a bit more but not the party as a whole.

[Kizzy]

Farage is a banker, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could kick him :/

[kirklancaster]

Was your point that business owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone? Cos I'd agree to that to a certain extent but not to the extent where you can discriminate against a person openly because of who they are.. I'm more on a 'not selling a drunk person more beer' level.

Yes - What I'm saying Withano, is that this is blowing something up out of all proportion. If a Gay guy or woman tries to order something from a supplier which is against the supplier's principles or faith, then as wrong as that may be to us, feck them - there are plenty of other suppliers eager for business, and to legislate against this crap with all the troubles in the world and the UK already in the grip of a 'Nanny State' thanks to Blair, is ridiculous in my opinion.

Maybe there wouldn't have been a problem with the Irish example of the cake had it not been for the 'Support Gay" message and same sex images.

I believe that a person has a right to be Gay and to marry same sex partners, but I also believe that in a Democracy a person of devout faith has the right to refuse such business if it genuinely compromises his beliefs.

I'm a Christian but not a Church goer and I regard Christian Extremists as OTT to be honest, but I would never advocate forcing any law on a person which makes him go against his beliefs.

There are so many alternatives now freely available to Gay people that I honestly don't know what all the fuss is about - just take your business elsewhere.

[Kizzy]

What if you're a gay Christian?

[Tom4784]

Maybe everyone who cares for Gay Rights should start having REAL perspective and instead of wishing there were no CHURCHES start PRAYING that the day doesn't come when you get your wish and there will be no Churches ONLY MOSQUES, because the day that happens - and it 1,000% will - there will also BE NO GAYS.

People like you always make the hysterical 'ISLAM IS EVIL, IT'S GONNA TAKE OVER' speeches but they never say HOW that's going to happen.

Islam is a minority religion, the mount of agnostic/atheist people alone in the UK outnumber them significantly and they aren't going to stop breeding any time soon so Islam can't become a dominant religion in the UK through pure numbers. The media is overly suspicious of anyone with islamic connections so it would be extremely difficult for an extremist to come into power unnoticed and pretty much impossible for them to enforce anything that would benefit Islamic extremism. Even if by some miracle that they could bring something like Shariah Law into effect, it wouldn't stay in effect for long. You can't take a liberal nation and then turn it into a Shariah State, it would result in anarchy and any government that tried to enforce it would be overthrown quickly plus you'd have a battle on your hands to get the Law Enforcement agencies and the Army to comply and enforce it in the first place.

Since a political path to Power isn't viable and a gradual islamification of the British Public is impossible how do you propose that Islam will '1000%' take over? Please tell me, I'm fascinated in hearing what it is you know that nobody else does.

[M X]

great policy fair play. the reverse bigotry is totally out of hand....death threats and violence for anyone who has a different opinion is bang out of order

Hahahaha this whole logic is backwards and ridiculous. :joker: If you are going to have an opinion, at least try to not making yourself a laughing stock.

You are somehow suggesting that real tolerance is tolerating and embracing other peoples intolerance? Heterophobia doesn't exist, just like reverse racism doesn't exist either. (A few examples of ignorance doesn't equate to a pandemic issue that is equal to the plight of a minority for generations.)

I'm not saying that death threats or violence is appropriate or the right way to go about it, but that doesn't mean that nothing should be done either.

[kirklancaster]

What if you're a gay Christian?

What if you are? There are lots of Gay Christians. Obviously you cannot be a Gay Christian Fundamentalist anymore than you can be a Gay Muslim Fundamentalist.

I don't understand your point.

[joeysteele]

Yes - What I'm saying Withano, is that this is blowing something up out of all proportion. If a Gay guy or woman tries to order something from a supplier which is against the supplier's principles or faith, then as wrong as that may be to us, feck them - there are plenty of other suppliers eager for business, and to legislate against this crap with all the troubles in the world and the UK already in the grip of a 'Nanny State' thanks to Blair, is ridiculous in my opinion.

Maybe there wouldn't have been a problem with the Irish example of the cake had it not been for the 'Support Gay" message and same sex images.

I believe that a person has a right to be Gay and to marry same sex partners, but I also believe that in a Democracy a person of devout faith has the right to refuse such business if it genuinely compromises his beliefs.

I'm a Christian but not a Church goer and I regard Christian Extremists as OTT to be honest, but I would never advocate forcing any law on a person which makes him go against his beliefs.

There are so many alternatives now freely available to Gay people that I honestly don't know what all the fuss is about - just take your business elsewhere.

There I disagree, in my view such people should not even be allowed to be in such a business and cause offence to others who are simply legitimately seeking to do business that the rest of society can.
That is discrimination and should be wrong in any circumstances.

[kirklancaster]

There I disagree, in my view such people should not even be allowed to be in such a business and cause offence to others who are simply legitimately seeking to do business that the rest of society can.
That is discrimination and should be wrong in any circumstances.

And here we have the problem Joey:

Christians - even Fundamentalist ones - were learning trades and skills and building up businesses for many, many centuries BEFORE homosexuality became legal.

Christian Fundamentalists beliefs are their raison d'etre (the same reason why some Christians are beheaded by IS because they will not renounce their faith) and therefore certain developments in the modern world do not alter their perception of their Holy Book or their devout adherence to its scripture.

So if we have a, say, Cake making business, as the Irish example, which has been in one Christian family for generations, and a Gay couple enter and ask for a Wedding Cake making complete with slogan; "Support Gay Marriage".

What you are maintaining is that the Cake shop owner should either be;

A) Forced by Law to accept the Order and process it
B) Be prosecuted under the law if he refuses to accept the Order and process it.
C) Should be prevented by law from being in the business he and his family have owned and run for over 100 years.

Now who is DISCRIMINATING against who?

The OWNER turns down the the order from the prospective customer because it compromises his religious beliefs.

The customer is offended by this.

I know we are generalising here, but Why is the customer offended?

If the owner has explained in a cordial and polite way just WHY he cannot accept the order, then why do we need legislation?

Why can't the customer just take his order to a NON-CHRISTIAN cake shop?

[the truth]

Hahahaha this whole logic is backwards and ridiculous. :joker: If you are going to have an opinion, at least try to not making yourself a laughing stock.

You are somehow suggesting that real tolerance is tolerating and embracing other peoples intolerance? Heterophobia doesn't exist, just like reverse racism doesn't exist either. (A few examples of ignorance doesn't equate to a pandemic issue that is equal to the plight of a minority for generations.)

I'm not saying that death threats or violence is appropriate or the right way to go about it, but that doesn't mean that nothing should be done either.

im saying death threats are wrong on either side, you on the other hand are mocking death threats made against Christians?

[the truth]

And here we have the problem Joey:

Christians - even Fundamentalist ones - were learning trades and skills and building up businesses for many, many centuries BEFORE homosexuality became legal.

Christian Fundamentalists beliefs are their raison d'etre (the same reason why some Christians are beheaded by IS because they will not renounce their faith) and therefore certain developments in the modern world do not alter their perception of their Holy Book or their devout adherence to its scripture.

So if we have a, say, Cake making business, as the Irish example, which has been in one Christian family for generations, and a Gay couple enter and ask for a Wedding Cake making complete with slogan; "Support Gay Marriage".

What you are maintaining is that the Cake shop owner should either be;

A) Forced by Law to accept the Order and process it
B) Be prosecuted under the law if he refuses to accept the Order and process it.
C) Should be prevented by law from being in the business he and his family have owned and run for over 100 years.

Now who is DISCRIMINATING against who?

The OWNER turns down the the order from the prospective customer because it compromises his religious beliefs.

The customer is offended by this.

I know we are generalising here, but Why is the customer offended?

If the owner has explained in a cordial and polite way just WHY he cannot accept the order, then why do we need legislation?

Why can't the customer just take his order to a NON-CHRISTIAN cake shop?

exactly.....anyone with a religious belief that says they don't want to support gay ,marriage should be left alone without death threats....sadly some radical gay rights activists literally want their cake and eat it

[bots]

The simple truth is; that no one should be FORCED to do anything by law if it is in genuine conflict with their beliefs - religious or otherwise - if there are viable alternatives available.



There is a simple reason why people are FORCED to do things by law, irrespective of religion. It is because The law is paramount.

In your example, all I would need to do would be create a religion that believed murder was a valid option if I disagreed with someone, and I then could not be prosecuted for it. Completely unworkable and that is why all religious groups, or any other group for that matter must abide by the law.

[the truth]

There is a simple reason why people are FORCED to do things by law, irrespective of religion. It is because The law is paramount.

In your example, all I would need to do would be create a religion that believed murder was a valid option if I disagreed with someone, and I then could not be prosecuted for it. Completely unworkable and that is why all religious groups, or any other group for that matter must abide by the law.

that's false argument, or a false dichotomy
the law does not force people to agree to gay marriage, in this case individuals are allowed as in many cases to simply not conform and agree on grounds of religious consciousness. the only people breaking the law are radical gay activists making death threats. these people should be locked up.

There is also a distinction to be drawn between old and new testament. The new convenant of Christianity over rode the hard line of the old testament in many key areas. fundamentally Christ and his life and death allowed repentance, forgiveness and redemption. I have read the book and I find nothing of Christ denouncing homosexuality either. Though some people choose to look at the old testament, I don't. I think homosexuality is fine as far as Im concerned. frankly if 2 men or 2 women choose to love each other have sex together etc its none of my business

The new covenant is spoken about first in the book of Jeremiah. The old covenant that God had established with His people required obedience to the Old Testament Mosaic law. Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), the law required that people perform rituals and sacrifices in order to please God and remain in His grace. The prophet Jeremiah predicted that there would be a time when God would make a new covenant with the nation of Israel.

"‘The day will come,’ says the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. . . . But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,’ says the Lord. ‘I will put my law in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people’" (Jeremiah 31:31, 33). Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law of Moses (Matthew 5:17) and create a new covenant between God and His people. The old covenant was written in stone, but the new covenant is written on our hearts, made possible only by faith in Christ, who shed His own blood to atone for the sins of the world. Luke 22:20 (ESV) says, "And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’"

Now that we are under the new covenant, we are not under the penalty of the law. We are now given the opportunity to receive salvation as a free gift (Ephesians 2:8-9). Through the life-giving Holy Spirit who lives in all believers (Romans 8:9-11), we can now share in the inheritance of Christ and enjoy a permanent, unbroken relationship with God. Hebrews 9:15 declares, “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/new-covenant.html#ixzz3Ykq3D4gS

[Withano]

Yes - What I'm saying Withano, is that this is blowing something up out of all proportion. If a Gay guy or woman tries to order something from a supplier which is against the supplier's principles or faith, then as wrong as that may be to us, feck them - there are plenty of other suppliers eager for business, and to legislate against this crap with all the troubles in the world and the UK already in the grip of a 'Nanny State' thanks to Blair, is ridiculous in my opinion.

Maybe there wouldn't have been a problem with the Irish example of the cake had it not been for the 'Support Gay" message and same sex images.

I believe that a person has a right to be Gay and to marry same sex partners, but I also believe that in a Democracy a person of devout faith has the right to refuse such business if it genuinely compromises his beliefs.

I'm a Christian but not a Church goer and I regard Christian Extremists as OTT to be honest, but I would never advocate forcing any law on a person which makes him go against his beliefs.

There are so many alternatives now freely available to Gay people that I honestly don't know what all the fuss is about - just take your business elsewhere.

I would 100% agree with you if there was one single church that follows every single thing that the bible says. However, in the Uk at least, there is not. If a church can pick and choose which passages to follow to protect the rights of women, they should find a way to support the rights of all humans too. If there was a church that followed every single passage down to the last detail, I'd let them off.

I'm also Christian but believe that morality trumps ignorance and some people, especially including the people who are in UKIP and those that support UKIP need to grow up! They're just backward and old-fashioned. This policy isn't the final straw, it is just an extra insult on top of a long line of mistakes.

[the truth]

I would 100% agree with you if there was one single church that follows every single thing that the bible says. However, in the Uk at least, there is not. If a church can pick and choose which passages to follow to protect the rights of women, they should find a way to support the rights of all humans too. If there was a church that followed every single passage down to the last detail, I'd let them off.

I'm also Christian but believe that morality trumps ignorance and some people, especially including the people who are in UKIP and those that support UKIP need to grow up! They're just backward and old-fashioned. This policy isn't the final straw, it is just an extra insult on top of a long line of mistakes.

the extremists on all sides who threaten death and violence are all out of order

[Withano]

the extremists on all sides who threaten death and violence are all out of order

obviously.. why did you quote me? haha.

[bots]

that's false argument, or a false dichotomy
the law does not force people to agree to gay marriage, in this case individuals are allowed as in many cases to simply not conform and agree on grounds of religious consciousness. the only people breaking the law are radical gay activists making death threats. these people should be locked up.

There is also a distinction to be drawn between old and new testament. The new convenant of Christianity over rode the hard line of the old testament in many key areas. fundamentally Christ and his life and death allowed repentance, forgiveness and redemption. I have read the book and I find nothing of Christ denouncing homosexuality either. Though some people choose to look at the old testament, I don't. I think homosexuality is fine as far as Im concerned. frankly if 2 men or 2 women choose to love each other have sex together etc its none of my business

The new covenant is spoken about first in the book of Jeremiah. The old covenant that God had established with His people required obedience to the Old Testament Mosaic law. Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), the law required that people perform rituals and sacrifices in order to please God and remain in His grace. The prophet Jeremiah predicted that there would be a time when God would make a new covenant with the nation of Israel.

"‘The day will come,’ says the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. . . . But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,’ says the Lord. ‘I will put my law in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people’" (Jeremiah 31:31, 33). Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law of Moses (Matthew 5:17) and create a new covenant between God and His people. The old covenant was written in stone, but the new covenant is written on our hearts, made possible only by faith in Christ, who shed His own blood to atone for the sins of the world. Luke 22:20 (ESV) says, "And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’"

Now that we are under the new covenant, we are not under the penalty of the law. We are now given the opportunity to receive salvation as a free gift (Ephesians 2:8-9). Through the life-giving Holy Spirit who lives in all believers (Romans 8:9-11), we can now share in the inheritance of Christ and enjoy a permanent, unbroken relationship with God. Hebrews 9:15 declares, “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/new-covenant.html#ixzz3Ykq3D4gS

With respect, my argument is anything but false. NO individual is above the law, and certainly not one who hides behind religion. Kirk stated that people should be exempt from law if it conflicted with their religious beliefs. I merely stated the reality which is that religion CANNOT be used as an excuse not to abide by the laws of the land.

Also, Farage would be on dangerous ground if he attempted to exempt a religious group from the law as it would create an incredibly dangerous legal precedent. Thank god he has no chance of getting into power

[Nedusa]

"It follows a furore over a Christian bakery in Northern Ireland which was taken to court accused of discrimination after cancelling an order to make a cake featuring the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie arm in arm under the slogan “support gay marriage”.
That case led to attempts to change the law in the Province to allow individuals and businesses an exclusion from discrimination law to enable them to refuse to provide services if they go against their religious convictions."

GROAN :sleep::sleep::sleep:

Where does all this B.S end?

Should a Jewish PRINTING FIRM be FORCED by law to accept an order from a NEO-NAZI Organisation to print leaflets extolling the virtues of Adolf Hitler and denying the Holocaust?

Should a Bakery owned by BLACKS similarly be forced by law to HAVE to bake an anniversary cake for the Klu Klux Klan replete with a blackman hanging from a tree in glorious technicoloured icing?
Where does this all end?

Will we see good natured LGBT social events FORCED by law to allow known HOMOPHOBIC troublemaker thugs in?

I have associated with Gay people for decades, attended 'All Dayer's' and 'All Nighter's' at Gay Nightclubs from 'Heroes' in Manchester, to 'Rockshots' in Leeds, to 'Heaven' in London, ACTIVELY supported and CAMPAIGNED for 'CHE' - the' Campaign For Homosexual Equality' back in the 80's, and still have very close and dear Gay friends, but this is all BS. - a political 'Mountain out of a molehill' being seized upon by anti-UKIP bodies for their own ends to make political capital out of.

The simple truth is; that no one should be FORCED to do anything by law if it is in genuine conflict with their beliefs - religious or otherwise - if there are viable alternatives available.

Gays - like 'Straights' can marry in a Register Office or the Elvis' (non) Chapel in Vegas or their own front room.

If rebuffed by ANYONE, most Gays who I know would SCATHINGLY and WITHERINGLY tell them what to do with their 'Service' then turn on their heels and go elsewhere.

I don't think the law should be used to compel companies to provide services to people or groups that offend their religious beliefs, the companies in question should always have a choice whom they wish to do business with and should should be able to politely refuse the work from such groups.

We should always have the freedom in business to choose where our business goes and it would not go to people with whose views we find offensive.

On the flip to that though when it concerns a person who works for a company and that person is discriminated against because he or she has views which are at odds to the boss or company owner, well that is unacceptable as the person is employed to do a job of work and their personal views in that situation are irreverent .

In fact I think there is a law passed recently in Ireland which reinforces this actual situation.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Farage is a banker, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could kick him :/

er no kizzy he is a politician. a long time ago he was a trader on the stock exchange

[joeysteele]

And here we have the problem Joey:

Christians - even Fundamentalist ones - were learning trades and skills and building up businesses for many, many centuries BEFORE homosexuality became legal.

Christian Fundamentalists beliefs are their raison d'etre (the same reason why some Christians are beheaded by IS because they will not renounce their faith) and therefore certain developments in the modern world do not alter their perception of their Holy Book or their devout adherence to its scripture.

So if we have a, say, Cake making business, as the Irish example, which has been in one Christian family for generations, and a Gay couple enter and ask for a Wedding Cake making complete with slogan; "Support Gay Marriage".


What you are maintaining is that the Cake shop owner should either be;

A) Forced by Law to accept the Order and process it
B) Be prosecuted under the law if he refuses to accept the Order and process it.
C) Should be prevented by law from being in the business he and his family have owned and run for over 100 years.

Now who is DISCRIMINATING against who?

The OWNER turns down the the order from the prospective customer because it compromises his religious beliefs.

The customer is offended by this.

I know we are generalising here, but Why is the customer offended?

If the owner has explained in a cordial and polite way just WHY he cannot accept the order, then why do we need legislation?

Why can't the customer just take his order to a NON-CHRISTIAN cake shop?

No, not for me, if someone is in business, a public business where they want the custom of the public,then that is what they should provide, for all.
If they cannot, they should not be allowed to disciminate agains any people who are not and have not done anything illegal.

They have their rights to their views personally, not to push them down others throats in a business intended to attract custom from the UK citizenship,no way.

Better not to have such people in business in the first place if they would so firmly 'force' their views on others and discriminate.
The public have the right to choose where they take their custom, unless someone has threatened a business owner or their staff,all businessess wanting the publics custom should serve whoever approaches them.

No one doing nothing illegal, should be made to feel wrong or segregated for their feelings or relationships by anyone, in business or even otherwise.
Any legal protection, in this instance, should be for the potential customers,not some apparantly bigoted business people.

[kirklancaster]

No, not for me, if someone is in business, a public business where they want the custom of the public,then that is what they should provide, for all.
If they cannot, they should not be allowed to disciminate agains any people who are not and have not done anything illegal.

They have their rights to their views personally, not to push them down others throats in a business intended to attract custom from the UK citizenship,no way.

Better not to have such people in business in the first place if they would so firmly 'force' their views on others and discriminate.
The public have the right to choose where they take their custom, unless someone has threatened a business owner or their staff,all businessess wanting the publics custom should serve whoever approaches them.

No one doing nothing illegal, should be made to feel wrong or segregated for their feelings or relationships by anyone, in business or even otherwise.
Any legal protection, in this instance, should be for the potential customers,not some apparantly bigoted business people.

So you are in favour then of forcing by law, all the Synagogues and Mosques in the UK to MARRY gay people? Sincere Good Luck with that.

I couldn't really care less about whether Gays want to get married, order cakes specially dedicated with 'Pro Gay Marriage' motifs, or whether extremist Christians have a 'legal' right to refuse such requests. What I am totally bewildered by (though not surprised) is why this nonsense has been, and is being, blown up out of all proportion.

You write that; "No one doing nothing illegal, should be made to feel wrong or segregated for their feelings or relationships by anyone" - Yet does this NOT also include the business owner?

Are they not now as we speak being made to 'feel wrong' and 'being segregated for their feelings' and religious convictions'?

As 'The Truth' says, some hitherto ordinary decent, law-abiding business owners are now even receiving death threats and being ostracised for being compelled to adhere to their faith.

I would advocate a simple solution in which Fundamentalist Christian business owners erect signs stating (in nice polite terms) their beliefs, and apologising for not being able to cater for X, Y & Z . but I believe this would only lay them open to 1933 type "Judenboykott" and all the ensuing hatred which follows.

I have stated many times that I believe that the 'Law is the Law' and that it cannot be 'cherry picked, bent, twisted or re-shaped to suit our own personal prejudices and whims, so if it is current law that Christian Fundamentalist business owners MUST accept orders from anyone in spite of any conflict with 'religious' convictions, then they must do so, until such time as they suceed in having such a law democratically rescinded.

I have a deep uncomfortable feeling though, that this matter is just another example of a very real and sinister 'anti-Christian' movement in this country - borne surreptitiously by parties who have no other agenda than to destroy Christianity in this country, and usurp it.

I defy anyone on here to explain just why Christianity - the most peaceful of all religions - is the recipient of more vitriol than any other religion?

Christian Fundamentalists may wrongly be electing not to bake cakes for Gays, but they are NOT throwing them off the roofs of 12 storey buildings, and Gay people CAN take their business elsewhere.

What should be a trivial matter is being used to make political capital by sinister parties.

[Niamh.]

There is a simple reason why people are FORCED to do things by law, irrespective of religion. It is because The law is paramount.

In your example, all I would need to do would be create a religion that believed murder was a valid option if I disagreed with someone, and I then could not be prosecuted for it. Completely unworkable and that is why all religious groups, or any other group for that matter must abide by the law.

Exactly.

[Niamh.]

I don't think the law should be used to compel companies to provide services to people or groups that offend their religious beliefs, the companies in question should always have a choice whom they wish to do business with and should should be able to politely refuse the work from such groups.

We should always have the freedom in business to choose where our business goes and it would not go to people with whose views we find offensive.

On the flip to that though when it concerns a person who works for a company and that person is discriminated against because he or she has views which are at odds to the boss or company owner, well that is unacceptable as the person is employed to do a job of work and their personal views in that situation are irreverent .

In fact I think there is a law passed recently in Ireland which reinforces this actual situation.

Are you talking about the republic of Ireland or the North? and what law are you talking about? As far as I'm aware there was talk about a "conscience law" similar to what Nigel Farage wants after the printer story but certainly that's not been passed

[joeysteele]

So you are in favour then of forcing by law, all the Synagogues and Mosques in the UK to MARRY gay people? Sincere Good Luck with that.

I couldn't really care less about whether Gays want to get married, order cakes specially dedicated with 'Pro Gay Marriage' motifs, or whether extremist Christians have a 'legal' right to refuse such requests. What I am totally bewildered by (though not surprised) is why this nonsense has been, and is being, blown up out of all proportion.

You write that; "No one doing nothing illegal, should be made to feel wrong or segregated for their feelings or relationships by anyone" - Yet does this NOT also include the business owner?

Are they not now as we speak being made to 'feel wrong' and 'being segregated for their feelings' and religious convictions'?

As 'The Truth' says, some hitherto ordinary decent, law-abiding business owners are now even receiving death threats and being ostracised for being compelled to adhere to their faith.

I would advocate a simple solution in which Fundamentalist Christian business owners erect signs stating (in nice polite terms) their beliefs, and apologising for not being able to cater for X, Y & Z . but I believe this would only lay them open to 1933 type "Judenboykott" and all the ensuing hatred which follows.

I have stated many times that I believe that the 'Law is the Law' and that it cannot be 'cherry picked, bent, twisted or re-shaped to suit our own personal prejudices and whims, so if it is current law that Christian Fundamentalist business owners MUST accept orders from anyone in spite of any conflict with 'religious' convictions, then they must do so, until such time as they suceed in having such a law democratically rescinded.

I have a deep uncomfortable feeling though, that this matter is just another example of a very real and sinister 'anti-Christian' movement in this country - borne surreptitiously by parties who have no other agenda than to destroy Christianity in this country, and usurp it.

I defy anyone on here to explain just why Christianity - the most peaceful of all religions - is the recipient of more vitriol than any other religion?

Christian Fundamentalists may wrongly be electing not to bake cakes for Gays, but they are NOT throwing them off the roofs of 12 storey buildings, and Gay people CAN take their business elsewhere.

What should be a trivial matter is being used to make political capital by sinister parties.

Churches are not a business Kirk, really.

You were on about cake shop owners and people in business serving the public.

Churches are the biggest of hypocrites anyway in my view, I am a Roman Catholic,I love still the mass and especially the Easter services, that however is not a business.
I can go to Church or not go to church,I don't give custom to a church,I am member of a Church not a customer.

All my post was on about was people operating a business open to the public, my response again to you was to the cake shop scenario.
That is a business, Churches, Mosques and Synagogues are places of 'worship' not 'shops' and other businesses.

The hypocrisy of the churches however are that they will happily take direct debits,collection plate money, donations from gay people and gay couples in relationships too, and then would segregate same from certain sacramental elements of the Church/Faith.
I myself think that totally wrong in the 21st century,however unfortunately legislation would be very unwise to force a change, although in my view it could be the right thing to do.

As again back now to people in business, that will involve the gathering of custom from UK citizens, so no, they should not be allowed to discriminate and refuse service on those grounds of personal faith.

Not so long ago, in my faith, holydays had to be strictly observed,such as good friday, Easter sunday and certain Saints days.
Now,(and not because of other religions from around the world),that doesn't matter as to business, Christians have to work sundays, and any other so called holydays,they have to put aside their personal religious views to be employed.
The same should apply to people in business.
They should have to put aside their religious personal views to 'serve' all the public from the business they choose themselves to go into and set up.

[Northern Monkey]

I think it should be totally up to the cake shop what content they will print on their cakes.If they find something offensive then they should have the right to decline to make that cake.Iirc the gay men had been customers in the past of that shop and the owner had no problem taking their business before,So they had nothing against these people,Just the content which they had been told to put on their cake.
If it is the company's policy not to make cakes with offensive slogans on and this cake WAS offensive to them then they should be free to refuse to make a cake with it on.

[Niamh.]

I think it should be totally up to the cake shop what content they will print on their cakes.If they find something offensive then they should have the right to decline to make that cake.Iirc the gay men had been customers in the past of that shop and the owner had no problem taking their business before,So they had nothing against these people,Just the content which they had been told to put on their cake.
If it is the company's policy not to make cakes with offensive slogans on and this cake WAS offensive to them then they should be free to refuse to make a cake with it on.

What if a black woman came in to order a cake for her wedding to a white man and the owner thought that interracial relationships were wrong, do you think he should have the right to refuse her on those grounds?

[Northern Monkey]

What if i went into a cake shop and asked them to make a cake with say 'cake shop owners are *****'
I could rightfully be refused business because it is up to that business as to what cakes they are willing to make.

[Niamh.]

What if i went into a cake shop and asked them to make a cake with say 'cake shop owners are *****'
I could rightfully be refused business because it is up to that business as to what cakes they are willing to make.

You didn't answer my question eyeball :nono:

To answer yours though, it'd be a bit of a weird thing to do and could technically be described as inciting hatred towards cake shop owners :laugh:

[Northern Monkey]

What if a black woman came in to order a cake for her wedding to a white man and the owner thought that interracial relationships were wrong, do you think he should have the right to refuse her on those grounds?

I think the cake shop should have total artistic authority over their own product.I don't think it would be right because it is not what i believe but you can't force the cake shop makers to make a cake which they don't wish to.The content that they offer should be totally up to the cake makers themselves then it is up to the customer to either use that shop or find one that better suits their needs.

[Northern Monkey]

You didn't answer my question eyeball :nono:

To answer yours though, it'd be a bit of a weird thing to do and could technically be described as inciting hatred towards cake shop owners :laugh:

Sorry i was adding to my previous post when yours appeared.

[Niamh.]

I think the cake shop should have total artistic authority over their own product.I don't think it would be right because it is not what i believe but you can't force the cake shop makers to make a cake which they don't wish to.The content that they offer should be totally up to the cake makers themselves then it is up to the customer to either use that shop or find one that better suits their needs.

I have to disagree, discrimination should have no place in a business, a cake shop is one thing but if you say it's ok to discriminate you're setting a terrible precedent imo. You could end up having creches refusing to take the children of single parents or mixed race children etc etc

I mean realistically speaking, if a customer knew that a particular cake shop was prejudiced against them for some reason they probably wouldn't use them anyway because they probably wouldn't trust them with something like their wedding cake

[Kizzy]

I don't feel they're fair examples either, you can't really compare anything other than homosexuals in reference to religious observance, except taxmen :/

[Niamh.]

I don't feel they're fair examples either, you can't really compare anything other than homosexuals in reference to religious observance, except taxmen :/

I disagree with that, discrimination is discrimination, why should homosexuals be the only "fair game" in discrimination laws?

[Northern Monkey]

I have to disagree, discrimination should have no place in a business, a cake shop is one thing but if you say it's ok to discriminate you're setting a terrible precedent imo. You could end up having creches refusing to take the children of single parents or mixed race children etc etc

I mean realistically speaking, if a customer knew that a particular cake shop was prejudiced against them for some reason they probably wouldn't use them anyway because they probably wouldn't trust them with something like their wedding cake

I would'nt compare this to a creche or something of that nature.
This is a product that is being offered.You would'nt dictate to a clothes company what they have to make and offer for sale,That is up to the designers to make and offer and hope that their product sells.If people don't like that product then they find a brand that they prefer.

[kirklancaster]

I don't feel they're fair examples either, you can't really compare anything other than homosexuals in reference to religious observance, except taxmen :/

:laugh2: Move over LT - They're's a new comic talent in town.

[Northern Monkey]

The cake shop offer a range of goods,It is up to them what is included in that range.Imo.

[Niamh.]

I would'nt compare this to a creche or something of that nature.
This is a product that is being offered.You would'nt dictate to a clothes company what they have to make and offer for sale,That is up to the designers to make and offer and hope that their product sells.If people don't like that product then they find a brand that they prefer.

They offer and make wedding cakes though

[Livia]

Businesses have the right to refuse service, they don't even have to have a sign up saying that they reserve the right to refuse, but their refusal can be based only on negative or threatening behaviour and not on grounds of race, sexual orientation etc.. Of course, I'm not sure if that's the same in Ireland.

[Niamh.]

Businesses have the right to refuse service, they don't even have to have a sign up saying that they reserve the right to refuse, but their refusal can be based only on negative or threatening behaviour and not on grounds of race, sexual orientation etc.. Of course, I'm not sure if that's the same in Ireland.

Yes it is as far as I know

[kirklancaster]

I have to disagree, discrimination should have no place in a business, a cake shop is one thing but if you say it's ok to discriminate you're setting a terrible precedent imo. You could end up having creches refusing to take the children of single parents or mixed race children etc etc

I mean realistically speaking, if a customer knew that a particular cake shop was prejudiced against them for some reason they probably wouldn't use them anyway because they probably wouldn't trust them with something like their wedding cake

This is a seriously valid point Niamh, and one which I pondered. I wouldn't go to any cake shop which I knew did not genuinely want to serve me and were being made to because of the law, because - as you say - I just would not trust them because of what they might do to my cake because of possible resentment.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The best thing to do is use a little nowse and if you are a "christian" who "thinks" that the bible hates on gays and for some reason want also to hate on them then when a gay couple come in and request a cake that says "we love gay marriage" then tell them a pork pie and say you cant make it as you have ran out of icing or your dog died or you are not doing cakes this week or say that the baker may take longer as he has syphilis and its contagious

that way they go off to find another baker and the hoo ha is avoided

[Niamh.]

This is a seriously valid point Niamh, and one which I pondered. I wouldn't go to any cake shop which I knew did not genuinely want to serve me and were being made to because of the law, because - as you say - I just would not trust them because of what they might do to my cake because of possible resentment.

yeah exactly

[kirklancaster]

The best thing to do is use a little nowse and if you are a "christian" who "thinks" that the bible hates on gays and for some reason want also to hate on them then when a gay couple come in and request a cake that says "we love gay marriage" then tell them a pork pie and say you cant make it as you have ran out of icing or your dog died or you are not doing cakes this week or say that the baker may take longer as he has syphilis and its contagious

that way they go off to find another baker and the hoo ha is avoided

Exactly LT - It works BOTH ways though and the Gay couple should just take their precious business elsewhere. This whole B.S. has been commandeered by anti-Farage elements to make political capital out of.

Blown up out of all proportion.

[Northern Monkey]

They offer and make wedding cakes though

They don't offer and make cakes which say 'support gay marriage' though.
Find another cake shop.Imo.

[joeysteele]

What if i went into a cake shop and asked them to make a cake with say 'cake shop owners are *****'
I could rightfully be refused business because it is up to that business as to what cakes they are willing to make.

That however would be seen as being offensive to those in the cake making industry, which would possibly even come under being an offence.

What say if a strong Labour couple ran a cake making business but got a request to make a cake for a Conservatives function.
That could aslo be against their views but it would still be wrong to refuse to do so as a business.

If someone is making cakes privately from their own home, then they can be more selective but as to general businesses,customers who are doing nothing illegal, should have the right to buy from all public outlets.

[Niamh.]

They don't offer and make cakes which say 'support gay marriage' though.
Find another cake shop.Imo.

What if it was just their wedding cake, a normal wedding cake like any straight couples except it was for a gay couple?

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://cbsdenver.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/cake-shop-protest-vo-transf.jpg?w=620&h=349&crop=1

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://cdn1.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article31096827.ece/91095/ALTERNATES/h342/Court%20Case%20114JPG.jpghttp://cdn4.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/article31099410.ece/6876b/ALTERNATES/h342/PANews%20BT_P-a53d0dfd-67dc-4939-a15e-997cf03da752_I2.jpg

The first chap is the baker and the next is the "gay"

They would make a nice couple

The case was adjourned on March 30 with district judge Isobel Brownlie reserving her judgement. She told Belfast County Court she would reserve her judgement so that "full consideration" could be given to the evidence, which was presented over three days.

Judge Brownlie said: "It is not a straightforward area of the law.

"Obviously this is a case in which I propose to reserve my judgement."

It is understood the verdict in the landmark case will be heard on Thursday May 7.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ashers-bakery-gay-cake-verdict-expected-on-day-of-general-election-31182488.html

[Kizzy]

A good day to bury bad news... or the right to religious observance.

[Kizzy]

I disagree with that, discrimination is discrimination, why should homosexuals be the only "fair game" in discrimination laws?

Because they are the only sub group referred to in scripture, that's why Christians feel justified discriminating against them.

[joeysteele]

A good day to bury bad news... or the right to religious observance.

Religious observance is fine but in business it should not be forced down others throats.

I know a Jewish Family who I call friends,they have a business,their sabbath day is a Saturday, they still trade on a Saturday however.

It's called tolerance and serving the publics needs and wants, which is right.

[Niamh.]

Because they are the only sub group referred to in scripture, that's why Christians feel justified discriminating against them.

It doesn't matter whether or not Christians feel justified in discriminating against them though. It's either saying that it's ok to discriminate against a certain group as long as you're part of a religion and if that's the case what's to stop other religions doing the same against anyone they want? or else it's saying that discrimination is totally wrong for every group except gay people, they're fair game

[Northern Monkey]

What if it was just their wedding cake, a normal wedding cake like any straight couples except it was for a gay couple?

If that was the case then i'm sure this issue would'nt have arisen in the first place.The cake maker would have made a generic wedding cake,The gays would've bought it and happy days.

[Kizzy]

It doesn't matter whether or not Christians feel justified in discriminating against them though. It's either saying that it's ok to discriminate against a certain group as long as you're part of a religion and if that's the case what's to stop other religions doing the same against anyone they want? or else it's saying that discrimination is totally wrong for every group except gay people, they're fair game

It's their interpretation of the bible, that is the only group where they can legitimately say they go against their religious observance to provide a service for with regard to marriage.
If that is changed then they'll have to accept that, until then religious observances are protected under the same umbrella as gay rights as far as I see it.

[Tom4784]

If you offer a service that you're making money then you're a business and you should be held to discrimination laws. You should only be able to refuse service for valid reasons and having homophobic views and trying to justify them with religious beliefs that you've CHOSEN to believe in is not valid.

I hope this baker gets dragged through the mud, I hope Nigel and his party of racist homophobic throwbacks to the Nazis never come into power and I hope that any religious establishment that makes money from being a wedding venue is forced to endure the fact that they can't turn away gay customers.

[Northern Monkey]

It doesn't matter whether or not Christians feel justified in discriminating against them though. It's either saying that it's ok to discriminate against a certain group as long as you're part of a religion and if that's the case what's to stop other religions doing the same against anyone they want? or else it's saying that discrimination is totally wrong for every group except gay people, they're fair game
So it's ok to discriminate against somebody's religion?Forcing them to make something in their own shop which is against their religion is discriminating against their religious beliefs.

[Niamh.]

It's their interpretation of the bible, that is the only group where they can legitimately say they go against their religious observance to provide a service for with regard to marriage.
If that is changed then they'll have to accept that, until then religious observances are protected under the same umbrella as gay rights as far as I see it.

I thought this thread was about changing the Law to allow religious owned businesses to discriminate

[Niamh.]

So it's ok to discriminate against somebody's religion?Forcing them to make something in their own shop which is against their religion is discriminating against their religious beliefs.

If a gay cake shop owner refused to make a cake for a christian couples wedding then maybe you'd have a point

[joeysteele]

If you offer a service that you're making money then you're a business and you should be held to discrimination laws. You should only be able to refuse service for valid reasons and having homophobic views and trying to justify them with religious beliefs that you've CHOSEN to believe in is not valid.

I hope this baker gets dragged through the mud, I hope Nigel and his party of racist homophobic throwbacks to the Nazis never come into power and I hope that any religious establishment that makes money from being a wedding venue is forced to endure the fact that they can't turn away gay customers.

Very well said,I agree with near all that.
Perhaps I wouldn't go as far as to the description of Nigel Farage and UKIP,I share your hope they never come to power at all.

For me, that Baker should not be allowed to remain as a business to the public.

[Livia]

Actually, it says in the Bible that Jews may have slaves so long as they aren't other Jews. So you're all my slaves now, okay? Especially you, Dezzy....

[Niamh.]

Actually, it says in the Bible that Jews may have slaves so long as they aren't other Jews. So you're all my slaves now, okay? Especially you, Dezzy....

I thought we were already anyway :laugh:

[Livia]

I thought we were already anyway :laugh:

I like your attitude Niamh. I might promote you to uber-slave.

[kirklancaster]

If you offer a service that you're making money then you're a business and you should be held to discrimination laws. You should only be able to refuse service for valid reasons and having homophobic views and trying to justify them with religious beliefs that you've CHOSEN to believe in is not valid.

I hope this baker gets dragged through the mud, I hope Nigel and his party of racist homophobic throwbacks to the Nazis never come into power and I hope that any religious establishment that makes money from being a wedding venue is forced to endure the fact that they can't turn away gay customers.

Does this include Mosques? Would a Gay Muslim couple (and there ARE plenty) be warmly welcomed by say, the Birmingham Central Mosque in Highgate? And if not, you then advocate forcing the Mosque to marry them.

All good then.

[Tom4784]

Does this include Mosques? Would a Gay Muslim couple (and there ARE plenty) be warmly welcomed by say, the Birmingham Central Mosque in Highgate? And if not, you then advocate forcing the Mosque to marry them.

All good then.

I think 'any religious establishments' kind of covers well....anything, does it not?

[Northern Monkey]

If a gay cake shop owner refused to make a cake for a christian couples wedding then maybe you'd have a point

That did'nt happen and i still have a point:shrug:
Although i'm beginning to forget what that point was:laugh:

[Niamh.]

I like your attitude Niamh. I might promote you to uber-slave.

:amazed:

[Livia]

I couldn't marry in a synagogue because I was not marrying a Jew. Thems the rules... But I didn't feel like I was being victimised because I understood the rules. I never took the synagogue to court... I got married somewhere else. Actually we found an understanding CofE vicar who was happy to marry us. We could have made a massive song and dance about it but like I said, I understood the rules meant a synagogue couldn't marry us for religious reasons. It's not only gay people who are excluded from marrying in particular religious venues.

[Northern Monkey]

Ah that's it.Discriminating against somebody's religious freedom is still discrimination.

[Tom4784]

I couldn't marry in a synagogue because I was not marrying a Jew. Thems the rules... But I didn't feel like I was being victimised because I understood the rules. I never took the synagogue to court... I got married somewhere else. Actually we found an understanding CofE vicar who was happy to marry us. We could have made a massive song and dance about it but like I said, I understood the rules meant a synagogue couldn't marry us for religious reasons. It's not only gay people who are excluded from marrying in particular religious venues.

Well that's not right either if they are making money from the services.

I think religious establishments should only be able to use their beliefs to discriminate if they aren't actually making any money from doing so. If they are then they should have to uphold the discrimination laws like any other business should.

[Niamh.]

That did'nt happen and i still have a point:shrug:
Although i'm beginning to forget what that point was:laugh:

haha, well, I just don't think we're going to agree on this but it was a good old debate of a Thursday morning :laugh:

I couldn't marry in a synagogue because I was not marrying a Jew. Thems the rules... But I didn't feel like I was being victimised because I understood the rules. I never took the synagogue to court... I got married somewhere else. Actually we found an understanding CofE vicar who was happy to marry us. We could have made a massive song and dance about it but like I said, I understood the rules meant a synagogue couldn't marry us for religious reasons. It's not only gay people who are excluded from marrying in particular religious venues.

For me the whole whether or not a church, mosque etc should be forced to do the actual ceremonies is a different matter altogether, it's not really a public business as Joey pointed out earlier

[bots]

That did'nt happen and i still have a point:shrug:
Although i'm beginning to forget what that point was:laugh:

Trying to veer the thread back to the point .....:laugh:

Once a law is in force, that's it, there is no room for discussion. People either comply or they don't and they take the consequences if they don't. No exceptions.

At the moment, a business has the right to refuse to do business with who ever it decides is not right for them. However, that decision must also be made within the context of the law. refusing to do business with some PURELY on the grounds of a discriminatory stance that has been made illegal is against the law.

All that said, its simple enough for anyone to get round said laws. Sorry, can't do business with you as our order book is already full etc etc etc.

[Niamh.]

Trying to veer the thread back to the point .....:laugh:

Once a law is in force, that's it, there is no room for discussion. People either comply or they don't and they take the consequences if they don't. No exceptions.

At the moment, a business has the right to refuse to do business with who ever it decides is not right for them. However, that decision must also be made within the context of the law. refusing to do business with some PURELY on the grounds of a discriminatory stance that has been made illegal is against the law.

All that said, its simple enough for anyone to get round said laws. Sorry, can't do business with you as our order book is already full etc etc etc.

No room at the Inn :'(

[Kizzy]

I thought this thread was about changing the Law to allow religious owned businesses to discriminate

Hang on... ah.... oh well it relates to the other thread and if the precedent is set on May 7th with the case of the Irish bakers he won't have to promise anything as they'll all just cite that if they want to discriminate won't they?

[Niamh.]

Hang on... ah.... oh well it relates to the other thread and if the precedent is set on May 7th with the case of the Irish bakers he won't have to promise anything as they'll all just cite that if they want to discriminate won't they?

Yeah more than likely

[Crimson Dynamo]

what if the Christian baker started wolf whistling at well stacked girls as they walked past his shop?

What would "the gays" have to say about that?

[Livia]

Well that's not right either if they are making money from the services.

I think religious establishments should only be able to use their beliefs to discriminate if they aren't actually making any money from doing so. If they are then they should have to uphold the discrimination laws like any other business should.

We had to pay a fee and an pay for an organist but it was a tiny amount of money compared to the commercial wedding venues. Synagogues the same, it's just a small fee. They don't really make money from it because it's a place of worship, not a business.

[kirklancaster]

I actually used the Cake Shop incident as an example, but it is wrong to say that this thread is specifically confined to the Cake shop case in Ireland only, or confined to businesses only, because the actual thread title is: "Ukip offers legal protection to Christians who oppose same-sex marriage", and the text from the article quoted in the OP includes:

"The manifesto says: “We will not repeal the legislation, as it would be grossly unfair and unethical to ‘un-marry’ loving couples or restrict further marriages, but we will not require churches to marry same-sex couples. We will also extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue.”

So comment regarding Gay Marriages in Churches and other Religious places of worship is fair comment and should NOT be dissmissed by other FM's.

In any event, I have now been researching more into this case and several notable points place a new perspective on it and render it far more than any simple 'open and shut' case of discrimination and homophobia:

1) Gareth Lee - the man who placed the order for the cake is a Gay Rights activist and a volunteer member of the LGBT advocacy group Queer Space.
(Which to me explains just WHY this case ever materialised in the first place.)

2) 'Ashers' the Christian-Run bakery at the heart of the case is a family business owned by the McArthurs.

3) It was established that "Ashers serve gay customers in their shop on a daily basis"

(Which to me dispels any notions that the McArthurs are 'homophobic'.)

4) David Scoffield, QC for Ashers, said: "The defendants neither knew nor cared about Mr Lee's sexual orientation or his religious beliefs, if any, or his political opinions.

4)The QC added; that the refusal had been down to the content of the cake and was not connected to any characteristic of the customer.

(Which to me says that had Lee not ordered a cake with the slogan and motif on it there would have been no problem.)

5) "If a heterosexual couple had placed the same order they would have got the same response" Ashers QC tells court.

6) This is plainly not a sexual orientation case" Mr Scoffield QC for Ashers says.

7) "The problem was with the message on the cake. As a Christian I do not support gay marriage" Karen McArthur

8) Ashers QC asks "When the McArthurs put on their bakers apron must they put aside their religious beliefs, the very core of who they are?"

9) "Once a genuine case of 'Conscientious Objection' is established the state is obliged to protect the rights of the objectors" says Ashers QC.

(See my post below on 'The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights' which for me bearts out that 'Ashers' were within their LAWFUL rights to refuse the order.)

10) Ashers QC says if businesses are forced to produce goods against their religious beliefs it would "allow the malicious to stir up trouble"

11) The QC adds: "When individuals are forced to produce goods promoting a cause with which they strongly disagree, that is the antithesis to democracy"

12) Ashers' QC David Scoffield says Mr Lee's "perception of the reason" his order was refused is "irrelevant".

13) QC says he doesn't "want to minimise the hurt the plaintiff says he feels" but suggests Mr Lee was perhaps being "over sensitive"

(I bet!)

14) QC for Ashers tells judge the issue isn't how much sympathy there is for Mr Lee but must be determined objectively & dispassionately.

15) A barrister for Christian-run County Antrim firm Ashers said if they lost the discrimination case there would be wide-reaching consequences for shop owners.

16) He said it would mean a Muslim printer could not refuse to print a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad.

(Think about this deeply.)

17) The 'Equality Commission has set aside a fund of up to £40,000 to pay for legal costs in the case.

(What a huge waste of money on such a trivial matter which common sense could have avoided.)

Further;

'1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights'

In 1948, the issue of the right to "conscience" was dealt with by the United Nations General Assembly in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." The proclamation was ratified during the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favour, 0 against, with 8 abstentions.

I believe that local Gay Activist Gareth Lee probably had local knowledge that 'Ashers' were devout hard-line Christians, and deliberately placed his order there suspecting that it would be refused, so he could 'over-react' and then make it a 'cause célèbre' of a 'Test Case' around the time of the commemoration of 'The International Day Against Homophobia' last May.

Having read quite a few articles now, I am amazed that anyone deemed there to even be a Prima Facie case here. IMHO.

[the truth]

We had to pay a fee and an pay for an organist but it was a tiny amount of money compared to the commercial wedding venues. Synagogues the same, it's just a small fee. They don't really make money from it because it's a place of worship, not a business.

exactly the nonsense accusation all Churchers are money grabbers is simply a huge fat lie

[Northern Monkey]

I actually used the Cake Shop incident as an example, but it is wrong to say that this thread is specifically confined to the Cake shop case in Ireland only, or confined to businesses only, because the actual thread title is: "Ukip offers legal protection to Christians who oppose same-sex marriage", and the text from the article quoted in the OP includes:

"The manifesto says: “We will not repeal the legislation, as it would be grossly unfair and unethical to ‘un-marry’ loving couples or restrict further marriages, but we will not require churches to marry same-sex couples. We will also extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue.”

So comment regarding Gay Marriages in Churches and other Religious places of worship is fair comment and should NOT be dissmissed by other FM's.

In any event, I have now been researching more into this case and several notable points place a new perspective on it and render it far more than any simple 'open and shut' case of discrimination and homophobia:

1) Gareth Lee - the man who placed the order for the cake is a Gay Rights activist and a volunteer member of the LGBT advocacy group Queer Space.
(Which to me explains just WHY this case ever materialised in the first place.)

2) 'Ashers' the Christian-Run bakery at the heart of the case is a family business owned by the McArthurs.

3) It was established that "Ashers serve gay customers in their shop on a daily basis"

(Which to me dispels any notions that the McArthurs are 'homophobic'.)

4) David Scoffield, QC for Ashers, said: "The defendants neither knew nor cared about Mr Lee's sexual orientation or his religious beliefs, if any, or his political opinions.

4)The QC added; that the refusal had been down to the content of the cake and was not connected to any characteristic of the customer.

(Which to me says that had Lee not ordered a cake with the slogan and motif on it there would have been no problem.)

5) "If a heterosexual couple had placed the same order they would have got the same response" Ashers QC tells court.

6) This is plainly not a sexual orientation case" Mr Scoffield QC for Ashers says.

7) "The problem was with the message on the cake. As a Christian I do not support gay marriage" Karen McArthur

8) Ashers QC asks "When the McArthurs put on their bakers apron must they put aside their religious beliefs, the very core of who they are?"

9) "Once a genuine case of 'Conscientious Objection' is established the state is obliged to protect the rights of the objectors" says Ashers QC.

(See my post below on 'The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights' which for me bearts out that 'Ashers' were within their LAWFUL rights to refuse the order.)

10) Ashers QC says if businesses are forced to produce goods against their religious beliefs it would "allow the malicious to stir up trouble"

11) The QC adds: "When individuals are forced to produce goods promoting a cause with which they strongly disagree, that is the antithesis to democracy"

12) Ashers' QC David Scoffield says Mr Lee's "perception of the reason" his order was refused is "irrelevant".

13) QC says he doesn't "want to minimise the hurt the plaintiff says he feels" but suggests Mr Lee was perhaps being "over sensitive"

(I bet!)

14) QC for Ashers tells judge the issue isn't how much sympathy there is for Mr Lee but must be determined objectively & dispassionately.

15) A barrister for Christian-run County Antrim firm Ashers said if they lost the discrimination case there would be wide-reaching consequences for shop owners.

16) He said it would mean a Muslim printer could not refuse to print a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad.

(Think about this deeply.)

17) The 'Equality Commission has set aside a fund of up to £40,000 to pay for legal costs in the case.

(What a huge waste of money on such a trivial matter which common sense could have avoided.)

Further;

'1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights'

In 1948, the issue of the right to "conscience" was dealt with by the United Nations General Assembly in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." The proclamation was ratified during the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favour, 0 against, with 8 abstentions.

I believe that local Gay Activist Gareth Lee probably had local knowledge that 'Ashers' were devout hard-line Christians, and deliberately placed his order there suspecting that it would be refused, so he could 'over-react' and then make it a 'cause célèbre' of a 'Test Case' around the time of the commemoration of 'The International Day Against Homophobia' last May.

Having read quite a few articles now, I am amazed that anyone deemed there to even be a Prima Facie case here. IMHO.Excellent post:clap1: :clap1:
This outlines everything i was trying to say in my posts.
If this case was won by this gay couple it could open up a whole epidemic of these cases and would be devastating for peoples right to practice their religion in this 'democratic' country.(unless of course you pray to Allah).
Imagine the trouble if mosques are forced to carry out gay weddings.Which if this case is won will have to happen.If one religion has their rights taken away then all have to,and it will cause a ****storm.

[Northern Monkey]

It is not my RIGHT to go into a music shop and demand that they sell me a pair of trainers(they do not carry this product).
It is not my RIGHT to even go into that shop and demand that they sell me a CD that they don't carry anymore(i have to choose from the selection on offer).
It is not my RIGHT to go into a Halal takeaway and demand a bacon sandwich,It is against the owners religious beliefs (if that counts for anything) and they do not stock bacon,It would also be offensive to insist on this.
It is not a gay couples right to go into a Christian owned cake shop and demand a cake saying "i support gay marriage"(the shop does'nt sell such a cake and it is against the owners religious beliefs).
If i want these things i go to the appropiate store and come out happy.

[the truth]

It is not my RIGHT to go into a music shop and demand that they sell me a pair of trainers(they do not carry this product).
It is not my RIGHT to even go into that shop and demand that they sell me a CD that they don't carry anymore(i have to choose from the selection on offer).
It is not my RIGHT to go into a Halal takeaway and demand a bacon sandwich,It is against the owners religious beliefs (if that counts for anything) and they do not stock bacon,It would also be offensive to insist on this.
It is not a gay couples right to go into a Christian owned cake shop and demand a cake saying "i support gay marriage"(the shop does'nt sell such a cake and it is against the owners religious beliefs).
If i want these things i go to the appropiate store and come out happy. exactly some radical gay rights activists are deliberately looking for trouble

[Tom4784]

It is not my RIGHT to go into a music shop and demand that they sell me a pair of trainers(they do not carry this product).
It is not my RIGHT to even go into that shop and demand that they sell me a CD that they don't carry anymore(i have to choose from the selection on offer).
It is not my RIGHT to go into a Halal takeaway and demand a bacon sandwich,It is against the owners religious beliefs (if that counts for anything) and they do not stock bacon,It would also be offensive to insist on this.
It is not a gay couples right to go into a Christian owned cake shop and demand a cake saying "i support gay marriage"(the shop does'nt sell such a cake and it is against the owners religious beliefs).
If i want these things i go to the appropiate store and come out happy.

Okay, let's look at these comparisons.

'It is not my RIGHT to go into a music shop and demand that they sell me a pair of trainers(they do not carry this product).'

Explain this one to me. Going into a cake shop and ordering a cake to be made makes sense, going into a music shop to buy trainers? What is this comparison? Where is the similarities? You are literally stating an example that has nothing to do with the cake shop discussion

'It is not my RIGHT to even go into that shop and demand that they sell me a CD that they don't carry anymore(i have to choose from the selection on offer).'

Except that this cake shop probably offers custom cakes which means if they want to make money they'll probably have to make cakes for causes they disagree with. Comparing that to a music shop that no longer sells a certain CD is just stupid. Cake shops bake cakes to the specifications of their customers, if a music shop tried that with CDs it would be illegal.

It is not my RIGHT to go into a Halal takeaway and demand a bacon sandwich,It is against the owners religious beliefs (if that counts for anything)

This is like the Trainers in a music shop one, it's just dumb and nonsensical. A cake is a cake, a chocolate cake in support of gay marriage wouldn't be made any differently to a chocolate birthday cake. Comparing that to a Halal shop selling bacon is just silly beyond belief. the Halal takeaway wouldn't even stock Bacon, let alone refuse to sell it. The only way this comparison makes a modicum of sense is if the Cake shop refused to sell a certain kind of cake because an ingredient went against their beliefs and unless Christianity has forbidden Lemon Meringues then I don't see how this comparison makes sense.

It is not a gay couples right to go into a Christian owned cake shop and demand a cake saying "i support gay marriage"(the shop does'nt sell such a cake and it is against the owners religious beliefs).

The cake shop offers customised orders, if the owners aren't mature enough to accept that they would sometimes have to make cakes for occasions that they would disagree with then they shouldn't offer custom cakes.

Their religious views doesn't give them the freedom to discriminate.

[the truth]

Okay, let's look at these comparisons.

'It is not my RIGHT to go into a music shop and demand that they sell me a pair of trainers(they do not carry this product).'

Explain this one to me. Going into a cake shop and ordering a cake to be made makes sense, going into a music shop to buy trainers? What is this comparison? Where is the similarities? You are literally stating an example that has nothing to do with the cake shop discussion

'It is not my RIGHT to even go into that shop and demand that they sell me a CD that they don't carry anymore(i have to choose from the selection on offer).'

Except that this cake shop probably offers custom cakes which means if they want to make money they'll probably have to make cakes for causes they disagree with. Comparing that to a music shop that no longer sells a certain CD is just stupid. Cake shops bake cakes to the specifications of their customers, if a music shop tried that with CDs it would be illegal.

It is not my RIGHT to go into a Halal takeaway and demand a bacon sandwich,It is against the owners religious beliefs (if that counts for anything)

This is like the Trainers in a music shop one, it's just dumb and nonsensical. A cake is a cake, a chocolate cake in support of gay marriage wouldn't be made any differently to a chocolate birthday cake. Comparing that to a Halal shop selling bacon is just silly beyond belief. the Halal takeaway wouldn't even stock Bacon, let alone refuse to sell it. The only way this comparison makes a modicum of sense is if the Cake shop refused to sell a certain kind of cake because an ingredient went against their beliefs and unless Christianity has forbidden Lemon Meringues then I don't see how this comparison makes sense.

It is not a gay couples right to go into a Christian owned cake shop and demand a cake saying "i support gay marriage"(the shop does'nt sell such a cake and it is against the owners religious beliefs).

The cake shop offers customised orders, if the owners aren't mature enough to accept that they would sometimes have to make cakes for occasions that they would disagree with then they shouldn't offer custom cakes.

Their religious views doesn't give them the freedom to discriminate.

gay rights doesn't give gay activists the freedom to discriminate or make death threats:nono:

[MB.]

And this is why I rarely venture into Serious Debates.

[Northern Monkey]

Okay, let's look at these comparisons.

'It is not my RIGHT to go into a music shop and demand that they sell me a pair of trainers(they do not carry this product).'

Explain this one to me. Going into a cake shop and ordering a cake to be made makes sense, going into a music shop to buy trainers? What is this comparison? Where is the similarities? You are literally stating an example that has nothing to do with the cake shop discussion

'It is not my RIGHT to even go into that shop and demand that they sell me a CD that they don't carry anymore(i have to choose from the selection on offer).'

Except that this cake shop probably offers custom cakes which means if they want to make money they'll probably have to make cakes for causes they disagree with. Comparing that to a music shop that no longer sells a certain CD is just stupid. Cake shops bake cakes to the specifications of their customers, if a music shop tried that with CDs it would be illegal.

It is not my RIGHT to go into a Halal takeaway and demand a bacon sandwich,It is against the owners religious beliefs (if that counts for anything)

This is like the Trainers in a music shop one, it's just dumb and nonsensical. A cake is a cake, a chocolate cake in support of gay marriage wouldn't be made any differently to a chocolate birthday cake. Comparing that to a Halal shop selling bacon is just silly beyond belief. the Halal takeaway wouldn't even stock Bacon, let alone refuse to sell it. The only way this comparison makes a modicum of sense is if the Cake shop refused to sell a certain kind of cake because an ingredient went against their beliefs and unless Christianity has forbidden Lemon Meringues then I don't see how this comparison makes sense.

It is not a gay couples right to go into a Christian owned cake shop and demand a cake saying "i support gay marriage"(the shop does'nt sell such a cake and it is against the owners religious beliefs).

The cake shop offers customised orders, if the owners aren't mature enough to accept that they would sometimes have to make cakes for occasions that they would disagree with then they shouldn't offer custom cakes.

Their religious views doesn't give them the freedom to discriminate.This cake shop does not offer or sell that cake.They don't refuse to serve gay people they just don't provide the cake that this couple wanted as it goes against their beliefs.This couple need to go to a shop which does sell the cake they desire.

[bots]

gay rights doesn't give gay activists the freedom to discriminate or make death threats:nono:

This is not the topic of thread or indeed of any related significance.

Everyone has to abide by the laws of the land, if they don't, you have anarchy. Plain and simple

[Tom4784]

This cake shop does not offer or sell that cake.They don't refuse to serve gay people they just don't provide the cake that this couple wanted as it goes against their beliefs.This couple need to go to a shop which does sell the cake they desire.

They do orders, they don't just go 'sorry, I looked in the store room, we've got no gay rights cakes, come back tomorrow morning when we've got a new delivery coming in'. They refused to make the cake because it supported gay rights, that's discrimination.

[Northern Monkey]

They do orders, they don't just go 'sorry, I looked in the store room, we've got no gay rights cakes, come back tomorrow morning when we've got a new delivery coming in'. They refused to make the cake because it supported gay rights, that's discrimination.

Again.It is not a right to demand that the cake shop make anything.They can decide on the cakes that they offer.If they don't offer a particular cake then it is down to the customer to find somewhere that does.
I once went into a tattoo shop and asked for a custom design,The tattooist told me he would'nt be able to do it for some reason.I did'nt take him to court,I went somewhere else.

[Kizzy]

Dare I ask what the tattoo was?

[Tom4784]

Again.It is not a right to demand that the cake shop make anything.They can decide on the cakes that they offer.If they don't offer a particular cake then it is down to the customer to find somewhere that does.
I once went into a tattoo shop and asked for a custom design,The tattooist told me he would'nt be able to do it for some reason.I did'nt take him to court,I went somewhere else.

Again, that's a terrible comparison since you've been deliberately vague with the details and chances are he refused you because he simply couldn't do it.

That's different to refusing someone because they want something that supports Gay Rights.

[the truth]

This is not the topic of thread or indeed of any related significance.

Everyone has to abide by the laws of the land, if they don't, you have anarchy. Plain and simple

it is part of the topic and is wholly relevant. you have to look at the whole picture not just a small part of it...this violence and death threats form the radical gay rights activists has gone unpunished , that must changed. there is no excuse for resorting to that level of depraved threats and violence on either side

[Northern Monkey]

Dare I ask what the tattoo was?

Just a sleeve of tribal art to join up some i had got done years before.The ones i got done already just looked like 3 different designs on top of each other,The first i got whilst drunk and it was crap and the others although good in there own right did'nt look how i wanted as a whole.I wanted to join them up to make them look like one big design.Still not got it done yet but i went to a different place who said they could do it.

[Kizzy]

Just a sleeve of tribal art to join up some i had got done years before.The ones i got done already just looked like 3 different designs on top of each other,The first i got whilst drunk and it was crap and the others although good in there own right did'nt look how i wanted as a whole.I wanted to join them up to make them look like one big design.Still not got it done yet but i went to a different place who said they could do it.

And there was me thinking it was something all controversial :hmph:

[Northern Monkey]

And there was me thinking it was something all controversial :hmph:

Sorry no anarchy signs here.:laugh:

[Northern Monkey]

Again, that's a terrible comparison since you've been deliberately vague with the details and chances are he refused you because he simply couldn't do it.

That's different to refusing someone because they want something that supports Gay Rights.

It does'nt matter why he could'nt do it just as it did'nt matter why the cake maker could'nt make the cake.It was the decision of the company as to the service or goods they provide.Then it is up to the customer to find somewhere which can provide it.
It would be another matter entirely if he'd said 'sorry we don't serve gays in here'.But that is not the case at all.

[Kizzy]

Conformist! :fist:

[Ammi]

"It follows a furore over a Christian bakery in Northern Ireland which was taken to court accused of discrimination after cancelling an order to make a cake featuring the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie arm in arm under the slogan “support gay marriage”.
That case led to attempts to change the law in the Province to allow individuals and businesses an exclusion from discrimination law to enable them to refuse to provide services if they go against their religious convictions."

GROAN :sleep::sleep::sleep:

Where does all this B.S end?

Should a Jewish PRINTING FIRM be FORCED by law to accept an order from a NEO-NAZI Organisation to print leaflets extolling the virtues of Adolf Hitler and denying the Holocaust?

Should a Bakery owned by BLACKS similarly be forced by law to HAVE to bake an anniversary cake for the Klu Klux Klan replete with a blackman hanging from a tree in glorious technicoloured icing?
Where does this all end?

Will we see good natured LGBT social events FORCED by law to allow known HOMOPHOBIC troublemaker thugs in?

I have associated with Gay people for decades, attended 'All Dayer's' and 'All Nighter's' at Gay Nightclubs from 'Heroes' in Manchester, to 'Rockshots' in Leeds, to 'Heaven' in London, ACTIVELY supported and CAMPAIGNED for 'CHE' - the' Campaign For Homosexual Equality' back in the 80's, and still have very close and dear Gay friends, but this is all BS. - a political 'Mountain out of a molehill' being seized upon by anti-UKIP bodies for their own ends to make political capital out of.

The simple truth is; that no one should be FORCED to do anything by law if it is in genuine conflict with their beliefs - religious or otherwise - if there are viable alternatives available.

Gays - like 'Straights' can marry in a Register Office or the Elvis' (non) Chapel in Vegas or their own front room.

If rebuffed by ANYONE, most Gays who I know would SCATHINGLY and WITHERINGLY tell them what to do with their 'Service' then turn on their heels and go elsewhere.

..why should they have to go elsewhere though, Kirk..is that not wrong that they should have to do that and does that not go against basic teachings of Christianity, that we are all one and the same in the eyes of God...I mean if there was a God and that's not saying there is but for people who believe he did then wouldn't it be a thing of ...'what would God do'..and the God they believe in, the God they have faith in/the God, the good..would not show prejudices, surely/he loved everyone and judged no one...it's not God that shows prejudices, it's man that shows prejudices and then tries to blame their God for those prejudices..this God they believe in and follow so much, well they really sold him out, didn't they..not their fault/God's fault, type thing...

..and there is no history of gay people persecuting, torturing and killing Christians like the KKK did with black people or the Nazi's did with Jewish people, because of that I think that a Jewish shop owner or a black shop owner would have every right and justification for saying....nope, I won't write that on a cake..in fact wouldn't it even be an insult and extremely offensive and disrespectful to ask them to in the first place....so honestly Kirk, if these prejudiced people shouldn't be forced then I really do believe they should be exposed for their prejudices and let them be judged as they are judging other and not in the name of their Lord either/let's not let them hide behind that...


..you know even in things like teaching/schools/nurturing and educating establishments/with the people who work there..?.. you and I could introduce our partner to the pupils and say...oh, this is Mr Ammi, my husband or Mrs Kirklancaster, my wife etc...but with staff who are gay..?..they still often have to say with their pupils..(in primary schools specifically I mean, just because that's where I have encountered it frequently..)...'this is my friend' as opposed to this is my husband or this is my wife and 'hide' who they are from young ears and minds....how does that encourage and educate to create less prejudice and keep with 'Christian' values....

[M X]

I think it should be totally up to the cake shop what content they will print on their cakes.If they find something offensive then they should have the right to decline to make that cake.Iirc the gay men had been customers in the past of that shop and the owner had no problem taking their business before,So they had nothing against these people,Just the content which they had been told to put on their cake.
If it is the company's policy not to make cakes with offensive slogans on and this cake WAS offensive to them then they should be free to refuse to make a cake with it on.

If we are going to allow discrimination, where do we draw the line?
Would it be okay for a business to refuse service to an interracial couple because they don't believe that different races should marry?

[Northern Monkey]

If we are going to allow discrimination, where do we draw the line?
Would it be okay for a business to refuse service to an interracial couple because they don't believe that different races should marry?

No,It would not be ok to refuse service for that reason.However it is up to the cake makers what design or text they are willing or able to put on the cake.They are the creators of it.I don't think an interracial couple would go in asking for a cake which says 'i support interracial marriage' on it.
If they did it would then be up to the cake company as to wether or not they could do that particular design.
However if they actually refused to serve an interracial couple any product they sell for that reason then that imo would be grounds for discrimination.
The cake shop had apparently done business with this bloke before iirc,He did'nt just refuse to serve him because he was gay.It was just the particular design that they wanted on the cake that was against the owners religious beliefs.
It's his shop,he can offer whatever products he likes in it at the end of the day.

[JoshBB]

The conservatives and libdems promised that they are already protected - and I believe them actually.

Seems like UKIP is trying to tap into the 'religious' vote, even though a lot of christians support gay marriage