[Livia]

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

To be fair though, if a Muslim owned a sandwich shop you would assume it would state clearly on the sign that it's Halal, in fact it would probably even be used AS advertising, so there's an expectation of "no ham". I guess the cake shop owner could put "No gay wedding cakes" on the sign but it wouldn't make for great advertising...

[bots]

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.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.

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.

The service that the gay couple asked for is exactly what the bakers advertised.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

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.

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...

[Livia]

Gay people and religious people have the same rights. They have the right to request a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage and the Christian baker has a right to politely refuse. You can't make one set of people's rights more important than someone else's rights. How many more wedding cakes are we going to be discussing? The vast majority of cake makers would probably make a cake for anyone so long as they pay. This couple went on a crusade and I'm sure it completely overshadowed their wedding.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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...

I think it's splitting hairs sorry TS, if the people involved were straight they would have be served. They might not refuse service to all gay people in all situations, but in this situation that was very much the reason behind it. There may have been other interrelated reasons to do with marriage etc but the bottom line is if they weren't gay they wouldn't have been refused sale.

[Livia]

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.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

I wouldn't go to a Halal store and expect a Ham Sandwich tbh. Not providing someone with a ham sandwich isn't the same as not providing someone with a product they do sell because of their discriminatory beliefs is a different ball park.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

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.'

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.'

[Livia]

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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Livia

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

sums it up for me

[user104658]

I agree with that, seems pretty succinct really, and the point is that no one has to like it - they can refuse to buy from there again, spread the message to other gay couples not to shop there (for any cake), tell their friends who may then also avoid etc. but it should never be an actual legal obligation when it's a political stance like this... And it is one.

It seems like a strange and difficult to understand thing for most people I guess, but I've encountered quite a few religious people who are actually totally fine with homosexuality and same sex relationships / "life partners", have gay friends, etc. and yet are opposed to same sex marriage, with the focus being more about their beliefs about what marriage is or should be... In the sense that "the Bible explicitly says its between a man and a woman" so therefore any other coupling isn't legitimately marriage. So I agree that its more akin to refusing to print / publish / legitimise a political message than it is direct discrimination.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

Is it advertised as a christian bakery?

The Americans are a funny lot.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

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

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?

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.

[Walter White]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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

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

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

christ has risen

[Alf]

Oh dear, what a bummer.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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?

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.

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."

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 . 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

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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."

True but then that ceases to be a valid comparison again, because dangerous propaganda this is not.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 . 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

I don't agree. I think it's upholding law, which is if you wish to run a business you're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender, sexuality, race, colour, creed etc. Like, if one of these men applied for a job at the bakery and were refused for being gay, that would be discriminatory and against the law.

Not the company being "forced" to do anything other than to follow the law.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Alf

Oh dear, what a bummer.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Walter White

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

Its not in Every State
in USA
Just a few.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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...

As i've already said in this topic Christians are an easy target when it comes to political debates like this and different views .

The guy in the bakery still offered to bake them another type of cake , so if the couple are so persistent to go with this particular baker then why not just accept another type of cake but just use it as a wedding cake? just don't have the writing "happy birthday" on the cake . Infact birthday cakes can even say "congratulations" on it but that's besides the point .

Or like i said they could just take their business elsewhere but noo it's more fun to take the baker to court and shame him and kick up a petty fuss about it

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

He looks like some hippy that lives in a forest. Look at the little trees surrounding the edge of the cake... it has a Robin Hood, 60's-era pot smoker vibe.