Originally Posted by Livia (Post 10027573)

No one would insist that a Muslim make them a ham sandwich. No one should be forced to go against their beliefs. I'll say the same thing the next time we have a gay couple wanting Christians to make them a wedding cake and then make a crusade of it when it doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 10027587)

Well, it's an interesting one .... Could someone go in to a hardware shop and demand that the shop supplied them with pink or blue nuts and bolts. I think the answer would be a most obvious no. If the person wanted blue and pink nuts and bolts, they would try and find a supplier that could provide them, they wouldn't try and sue the original shop.

Originally Posted by Jamie89 (Post 10027590)

So that would be a case of them refusing to sell a product because they don't have the product, thats not what happened in this case. The comparison would be them having the blue and pink nuts and bolts and refusing to sell them to someone because the person buying them is gay... because it's against their religion to celebrate gay people doing DIY.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10027592)

To be fair, in this case it's been made clear that it's not about them "refusing service to gay people" and they've stated that they would have no problem making a birthday cake (or any other cake) for gay people, it's specifically because it's a wedding case.

Do we even know if they're actually against gay relationships in general? Or are they fine with homosexual relationships but their objection is based on the whole "sanctity of marriage" thing? But then like I said; if it's the latter, they would refuse to make wedding cakes for previously divorced people too... presumably...

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 10027573)

No one would insist that a Muslim make them a ham sandwich. No one should be forced to go against their beliefs. I'll say the same thing the next time we have a gay couple wanting Christians to make them a wedding cake and then make a crusade of it when it doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 10027608)

Why do these people choose Christian bakers? Why not a Muslim one? Or a Jewish one? I'm sure the case wouldn't get as far as court if they did.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 10027641)

These bakeries that hide behind their religions to discriminate against people are rarely companies that have religion as their USP tbh. Nobody would have looked at this company or the one in Ireland and think 'ah, this is a christian bakery.'

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 10027735)

I agree with Peter Tatchell on the subject of gay marriage, he seems to have worked it out. This is about the Northern Ireland case, but the subject is the same.


“Although I strongly disagree with Ashers’ opposition to marriage equality,” the veteran LGBT and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has observed, “in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be compelled to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.” He is right.

Had Ashers refused to serve Lee because he was gay, or because of his support for same-sex marriage, then I can see why it would be guilty of discrimination. But it did not. It declined to decorate a cake with a particular message.

The Ashers discriminated not against an individual but against a specific political demand. To compel an individual or business not to discriminate between political demands has, as Tatchell points out, “dangerous implications”: “A Jewish publisher could be obliged to print a book that propagates Holocaust denial. Likewise, Muslim publishers could be legally pressured, against their will, to print the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that Muslims find deeply offensive.”



https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...o-refuse-order

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 10027608)

Why do these people choose Christian bakers? Why not a Muslim one? Or a Jewish one? I'm sure the case wouldn't get as far as court if they did.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 10027735)

I agree with Peter Tatchell on the subject of gay marriage, he seems to have worked it out. This is about the Northern Ireland case, but the subject is the same.


“Although I strongly disagree with Ashers’ opposition to marriage equality,” the veteran LGBT and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has observed, “in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be compelled to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.” He is right.

Had Ashers refused to serve Lee because he was gay, or because of his support for same-sex marriage, then I can see why it would be guilty of discrimination. But it did not. It declined to decorate a cake with a particular message.

The Ashers discriminated not against an individual but against a specific political demand. To compel an individual or business not to discriminate between political demands has, as Tatchell points out, “dangerous implications”: “A Jewish publisher could be obliged to print a book that propagates Holocaust denial. Likewise, Muslim publishers could be legally pressured, against their will, to print the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that Muslims find deeply offensive.”



https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...o-refuse-order

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 10026420)

http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnew....jpg?ve=1&tl=1

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony.

The case – Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission – asked the high court to balance the religious rights of the baker against the couple’s right to equal treatment under the law. Similar disputes have popped up across the U.S.

The decision to take on the case reflected renewed energy among the court's conservative justices, whose ranks have recently been bolstered by the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the high court.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., declined to make a cake for the wedding celebration of two gay men in 2012. Phillips told the couple that he would make a birthday cake but could not make a cake that would promote same-sex marriage due to his religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop.

"The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," the Court said in its decision. "While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/04...ne-events.html

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10027654)

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10027945)

I don't understand the comparison. In this instance they're making cakes, that they make, for the consumption of the customer paying for it.

A publisher doesn't just print any and all books, but books they as a company select and choose to finance/publish? :conf2:

It's why I don't get the halal comparison either. That would be a company being requested to make foods they don't sell, this isn't. It was a customer asking for a cake... from a cake shop.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10027962)

You could think of it as a printer rather than a publisher though... You can self-publish, but surely, if someone writes a book full of dangerous propaganda and orders 5000 copies to be printed, we want the owner of that company to be able to say "no I'm not OK with printing this."

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10027962)

Again this cake situation isn't about declaring them to be good people or morally justified or that they shouldn't face a boycott or whatever... It's just about making sure that no one is FORCED into anything :shrug:. I can see the point in legislation against this sort of discrimination when it's a larger company or chain... But a small business like an independent shop or soul trader, really their business should be "their business".

The only other effects are 1) hurting / offending the couple, but then I say again, better that they know what to think of that person...

And 2) costing themselves customers for a stupid bigoted reason. But if they want to do that then :shrug:

Originally Posted by Alf (Post 10027953)

Oh dear, what a bummer.

Originally Posted by Walter White (Post 10027946)

So the US Supreme Court supports bigotry. Good to know.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10027592)

To be fair, in this case it's been made clear that it's not about them "refusing service to gay people" and they've stated that they would have no problem making a birthday cake (or any other cake) for gay people, it's specifically because it's a wedding case.

Do we even know if they're actually against gay relationships in general? Or are they fine with homosexual relationships but their objection is based on the whole "sanctity of marriage" thing? But then like I said; if it's the latter, they would refuse to make wedding cakes for previously divorced people too... presumably...

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10027654)