[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The ol' Halal analogy is as flawed as it's always been. Those shops are built upon being Halal based companies and it's often stated in the name or on the premises in a prominent fashion, to go into those shops and expect something non-halal would just be foolishness.

These bakeries are not christian businesses, they are normal businesses that refused custom on the grounds of sexuality because of the bias of the owners. That's the difference.

Plus, given how flexible Christianity is as a religion, if you think the rules against eating shellfish or not wearing different kinds of fabrics are silly but then you preach the anti-gay stuff then you're just a bigot looking for justification for being a bigot. People pick and choose which parts of religion they wish to follow. the Anti-gay stuff is just as silly as stoning someone for wearing different fabrics but people choose to follow the prior because it suits their agenda.

Amen!

[Oliver_W]

I agree that the halal analogy is pretty daft, but I still think that even bigots (should) have the right to refuse service based on their beliefs. If the word spreads that the place is run by a bigot, then maybe they'll lose custom. But only if it happens organically, I don't agree with taking these things to the courts or media.

[Tom4784]

Bigots are entitled to their bigotry but they shouldn't profit from it or discrimination.

[Livia]

If a couple of Christian fundamentalists walked into a bakery run by a gay couple and asked for a cake saying, for instance, "Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God", I would expect the gay couple to refuse point blank. They'd have my backing just like the Christian couple have my support in this instance.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Bigots are entitled to their bigotry but they shouldn't profit from it or discrimination.

Bigotry is a hard thing to discriminate from, as far as we know they didn't make cakes which said BURN THE GAYS. Turning down business is the opposite of profiting from bigotry.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Livia

If a couple of Christian fundamentalists walked into a bakery run by a gay couple and asked for a cake saying, for instance, "Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God", I would expect the gay couple to refuse point blank. They'd have my backing just like the Christian couple have my support in this instance.

I think that is quite a poor comparison though.

You're comparing 'Support gay marriage' to 'Homosexuality is an abomination...', that's two different ballparks completely. One is a message of support, the other is a negative derogatory comment. A better comparison would have been if the christian customers wanted a cake displaying a positive religious notion that the gay bakers disagreed with but oh well.

I would not expect anyone to agree to making a discriminatory product, just like I wouldn't expect anyone to be forced to make products that support racism etc but if you were to come up with a 1:1 comparison (IE a positive religious slogan instead) then the gay bakers would have to make the cake whether they agreed with it or not.

Running a business means sometimes supplying services to people you disagree with.

[thesheriff443]

No one should be forced to do something they don’t want to do be they Christians or gays in a business situation or a private one.

[GoldHeart]

Is this happening again ?? .

This reminds me of another story about a wedding cake . And I still feel the same way , taking the bakery to court is ridiculous ! .

They could go to a different bakery or find another option.
As other's have said it does feel like the message on this cake is looking for unnecessary attention. Like they're trying to bait people .

[Northern Monkey]

Ok here’s one....
A gay butcher goes into a Muslim bakery which has no Halal signs on display and asks for a cake that says ‘support British Pork industries’ but the Muslim baker refuses due to religious grounds thus being discriminatory to pork munchers everywhere.
He will still serve the gay butcher but he can’t in all conscience put that message on the cake.
Should the gay butcher sue?

[Oliver_W]

No, the gay butcher should not. No-one in similar shoes should. Never mind the public hissyfits about not having your gay cake made, just go elsewhere.

[Crimson Dynamo]

People should get over it. The law spoke

Move on

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Ok here’s one....
A gay butcher goes into a Muslim bakery which has no Halal signs on display and asks for a cake that says ‘support British Pork industries’ but the Muslim baker refuses due to religious grounds thus being discriminatory to pork munchers everywhere.
He will still serve the gay butcher but he can’t in all conscience put that message on the cake.
Should the gay butcher sue?

Nice try Monkey... sadly it seems seems like all analogies are poor ones on here if you've decided this is a case of bigotry. Even if the law says it was not.

[Vicky.]

The actual definition of bigot is

'a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.'

I would say that goes for people both sides of the fence on a lot of topics.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

The actual definition of bigot is

'a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.'

I would say that goes for people both sides of the fence on a lot of topics.

Yes tolerance works both ways

[Alf]

How this even got to court is the most disturbing thing, they should have been laughed at and told to pi55 off.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

The actual definition of bigot is

'a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.'

I would say that goes for people both sides of the fence on a lot of topics.

Pretty much.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Alf

How this even got to court is the most disturbing thing, they should have been laughed at and told to pi55 off.

a disgraceful waste of court time

for the vanity of a couple of herberts trying to get likes on FB

VILE