[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Cherie

So a question to all who support this ruling, would you go into a Hindu run bakery and demand they make you a cake with eggs in it? OR would accept that they don't bake cakes with eggs and go elsewhere rather than forcing your wishes on them?

That's very different tbf, eggs haven't fought against discrimination in quite the same way gays have

Originally Posted by smudgie

Live and let live I say.
If it goes against their religion then aren't they being discriminated again for their beliefs?
If you go to a shop, any shop that can't supply what you want then you just move on to another, it doesn't have to be an issue unless you want to make it one....and certainly shouldn't be paid out for any feeling of hurt, indignity or trauma,( trauma, FFS)

It wasn't as though the shop "can't" supply them though, it's that they refused to on grounds of their sexuality. Can you imagine if a shop owner refused to serve someone based on their race? I think, yeah it's just a cake, and yes the amount of money seems a bit ridiculous, but there's no denying they were being discriminatory, and people who are going to run a business in a discriminatory fashion shouldn't be running a business.. And they aren't being discriminated against because of their beliefs, their beliefs contradict with business law and they made the decision to run a business. They can't simply expect the law to change or for them to be immune from it because of their personally held beliefs. And they aren't actually being stopped from having their beliefs, they are entitled to practise their religion however they want as anyone else is able to.... as long as it doesn't infringe on the law. They can still believe that gay marriage is wrong, they just can't refuse sale to someone based on their sexuality when they're supposed to be serving the general public... 'live and let live' would be something that I think they could do well to consider.