[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Cherie

[/B]


The cake situation is exactly the same, it's just Christain beliefs aren't as trendy to uphold as other religions these days

Yup.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Excellent point maybe these monk should have said that their views were 'banta' and that would have been more socially acceptable?
In the case of the Christian bakers as I recall there was a degree of sympathy there, even though it is a similar scenario... religious beliefs, perceived bigotry. Odd.

Religious discrimination against women, or anyone else is never acceptable.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by jaxie

He bragged which certainly makes him an idiot. But was it talk or did he do it? I can't say. I certainly wouldn't vote for him but then I'm not sure I could vote for 'emails' either.

...well I guess that bragging is something I personally would associate with something to be proud of../a code of behaviour to be proud of to the point of boasting about it..so it's down to our interpretation of those words when they're spoken in whether that person would feel it was something to brag about if it weren't truth...

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...well I guess that bragging is something I personally would associate with something to be proud of../a code of behaviour to be proud of to the point of boasting about it..so it's down to our interpretation of those words when they're spoken in whether that person would feel it was something to brag about if it weren't truth...

I have heard men brag before though and while it's unsavory it doesn't actually make a crime, what I'm getting at is that at the moment there is no proof he physically did anything inappropriate, it's speculation until then. I'm not a Trump supporter but he hasn't actually been proved guilty of anything but disrespectful talk. While this, IMO means he isn't President material, it's not exactly a crime. See I'm fair, I'm actually standing up for someone I think is a tool!

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I have heard men brag before though and while it's unsavory it doesn't actually make a crime, what I'm getting at is that at the moment there is no proof he physically did anything inappropriate, it's speculation until then. I'm not a Trump supporter but he hasn't actually been proved guilty of anything but disrespectful talk. While this, IMO means he isn't President material, it's not exactly a crime. See I'm fair, I'm actually standing up for someone I think is a tool!

..I have no idea Jaxie what points you're trying to make with regards to my original mention of Trump and the context of it..I really am failing to see a connection atm so I'm just going to leave it here as I've exhausted the thread anyway with my personal thoughts...(for today anyway....)...

[Northern Monkey]

That gay cake thing.From reading the article it was'nt that they would'nt serve them because they were gay.It was because that couple wanted a gay pressure group slogan on the cake.I mean would you go into a muslim cafe and demand they make you a bacon sarnie because you're a gay meat eater?Maybe take them to court if they refuse?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

That gay cake thing.From reading the article it was'nt that they would'nt serve them because they were gay.It was because that couple wanted a gay pressure group slogan on the cake.I mean would you go into a muslim cafe and demand they make you a bacon sarnie because you're a gay meat eater?Maybe take them to court if they refuse?

Interesting choice of words there.....

Your Muslim comparison is fatally flawed. Why would you go to a 'Muslim Cafe' (Is that even a thing?) and order bacon? It would be like going to a Vegan restaurant and complaining that they didn't serve meat. Bacon would not be on the menu to begin with.

Those bakers accepted the order and went back on it because of the client. It's really nothing at all like your little comparison. Not offering a product and refusing to serve someone based on their sexuality is completely different.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Interesting choice of words there.....

Your Muslim comparison is fatally flawed. Why would you go to a 'Muslim Cafe' (Is that even a thing?) and order bacon? It would be like going to a Vegan restaurant and complaining that they didn't serve meat. Bacon would not be on the menu to begin with.

Those bakers accepted the order and went back on it because of the client. It's really nothing at all like your little comparison. Not offering a product and refusing to serve someone based on their sexuality is completely different.

It was because of a slogan on the cake that was against the cake makers religion though.I'm pretty sure gay slogans were'nt on the cake shop menu just as bacon is'nt on a muslim food establishments menu.
Oh and veganism isn't a religion(although many of them treat it like one)so bad comparison.

[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

It was because of a slogan on the cake that was against the cake makers religion though.I'm pretty sure gay slogans were'nt on the cake shop menu just as bacon is'nt on a muslim food establishments menu

I never thought of it like that. You make a great point!

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

It was because of a slogan on the cake that was against the cake makers religion though.I'm pretty sure gay slogans were'nt on the cake shop menu just as bacon is'nt on a muslim food establishments menu.
Oh and veganism isn't a religion(although many of them treat it like one)so bad comparison.

Again, it's a poor comparison.

They made custom cakes that didn't come with terms and conditions or exceptions. They accepted the order and then took it back. That's completely different from your example of a Muslim Cafe where a Bacon sandwich wouldn't be on the menu to begin with. The Vegan example is a good one because it's exactly the same as what you are saying. You wouldn't go to a Muslim cafe expecting to have bacon, nor would you go to a Vegan establishment and expect meat to be on the menu.

That's completely different to a Bakery refusing custom on the grounds of sexuality. the bakery itself isn't associated with Christianity, only the owners so it's not like anyone would see it in the Yellow Pages and think 'Not gonna go there for my Gay Marriage cake, they are obviously Christians!'

[Withano]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Wow. I'll argue my point with anyone but really calling half the thread stupid is going a little far. Perhaps this is why I find your posts a bit offensive sometimes, arrogance.

I called the outrage on the thread stupid. And it is.

If a person is mad that a woman was asked to move seats whilst refusing half of the story, then their outrage is childish. Theres a simple explanation which would minimise their outrage and if they refuse this information, then their outrage is at best, simply unfounded.

If you accept both perspectives but still side entirely with the woman, i dont believe you can cry for social justice. Im a fan of practice what you preach.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I have no idea Jaxie what points you're trying to make with regards to my original mention of Trump and the context of it..I really am failing to see a connection atm so I'm just going to leave it here as I've exhausted the thread anyway with my personal thoughts...(for today anyway....)...

Oh I wasn't making a point, I thought we were just having a conversation of our thoughts on the issue. Have a good day!

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Withano

I called the outrage on the thread stupid. And it is.

If a person is mad that a woman was asked to move seats whilst refusing half of the story, then their outrage is childish. Theres a simple explanation which would minimise their outrage and if you refuse this information, then their outrage is at best, simply unfounded.

The point you don't seem to be getting is that there is no explanation that excuses refusing to sit next to someone because she is a woman. But I think I'm flogging a dead horse trying to get that across to you.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Again, it's a poor comparison.

They made custom cakes that didn't come with terms and conditions or exceptions. They accepted the order and then took it back. That's completely different from your example of a Muslim Cafe where a Bacon sandwich wouldn't be on the menu to begin with. The Vegan example is a good one because it's exactly the same as what you are saying. You wouldn't go to a Muslim cafe expecting to have bacon, nor would you go to a Vegan establishment and expect meat to be on the menu.

That's completely different to a Bakery refusing custom on the grounds of sexuality. the bakery itself isn't associated with Christianity, only the owners so it's not like anyone would see it in the Yellow Pages and think 'Not gonna go there for my Gay Marriage cake, they are obviously Christians!'

The cake shop accepted an order and changed their minds based on religious hoohar.

The airline accepted payment for the seat then moved the woman based on someone else religious hoohar. Where is the difference?

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Again, it's a poor comparison.

They made custom cakes that didn't come with terms and conditions or exceptions. They accepted the order and then took it back. That's completely different from your example of a Muslim Cafe where a Bacon sandwich wouldn't be on the menu to begin with. The Vegan example is a good one because it's exactly the same as what you are saying. You wouldn't go to a Muslim cafe expecting to have bacon, nor would you go to a Vegan establishment and expect meat to be on the menu.

That's completely different to a Bakery refusing custom on the grounds of sexuality. the bakery itself isn't associated with Christianity, only the owners so it's not like anyone would see it in the Yellow Pages and think 'Not gonna go there for my Gay Marriage cake, they are obviously Christians!'

However this was in Northern Ireland.The cake makers probably did'nt think they would be asked for a gay wedding cake.Wedding in Northern Ireland does or did mean a man and a woman.A gay wedding cake would be exceptional circumstances over there and would not come under the usual 'wedding' banner.So gay marriage slogans on wedding cakes were also not on their menu.Just as bacon sarnies are not on a muslim cafe menu.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by jaxie

The point you don't seem to be getting is that there is no explanation that excuses refusing to sit next to someone because she is a woman. But I think I'm flogging a dead horse trying to get that across to you.

I mean, there is. Youre still refusing the information available to you.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

That gay cake thing.From reading the article it was'nt that they would'nt serve them because they were gay.It was because that couple wanted a gay pressure group slogan on the cake.I mean would you go into a muslim cafe and demand they make you a bacon sarnie because you're a gay meat eater?Maybe take them to court if they refuse?

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

However this was in Northern Ireland.The cake makers probably did'nt think they would be asked for a gay wedding cake.Wedding in Northern Ireland does or did mean a man and a woman.A gay wedding cake would be exceptional circumstances over there and would not come under the usual 'wedding' banner.So gay marriage slogans on wedding cakes were also not on their menu.Just as bacon sarnies are not on a muslim cafe menu.

Discrimination against people based on their sexuality (which is what the bakery were found guilty of) is against the law, discrimination against people who have a preference for bacon isn't :/
The comparison only works if they normally sell bacon but refuse to sell it to a gay person (or they normally write slogans on their bacon but refuse to write a gay marriage slogan on one). It would only really work beyond that if bacon and bacon-eaters were a protected group with equal rights to lamb chops, but alas

The whole, 'they sell slogans but gay marriage slogans weren't on the menu' thing... the product they sell is customized slogans. So does the customer have a reasonable expectation to be served regardless of whether or not their slogan references gay marriage? Based on the law, yes they do. And as business owners it's the law they have to follow, their personal experiences of encountering gay people is irrelevant. Same as their personal views, or geography etc... the law doesn't stop applying to someone because they're not used to it or don't believe in it. They have every right to be surprised at the request, or to feel personally/morally/religiously against it, but none of those things change the law/what is reasonable for their customers to expect/their responsibilities as business owners.

(edit: sorry I know that's all completely off topic)

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Withano

I mean, there is. Youre still refusing the information available to you.

Why do I need more information when religion does not validate gender nor race discrimination? Nothing I am told about their religion will validate discrimination. It doesn't matter what their belief is, be it negative or positive it's still discrimination against a woman.

I might believe it's going to rain tomorrow, that doesn't mean I should refuse to sit next to a black guy on a bus.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Discrimination against people based on their sexuality (which is what the bakery were found guilty of) is against the law, discrimination against people who have a preference for bacon isn't :/
The comparison only works if they normally sell bacon but refuse to sell it to a gay person (or they normally write slogans on their bacon but refuse to write a gay marriage slogan on one). It would only really work beyond that if bacon and bacon-eaters were a protected group with equal rights to lamb chops, but alas

The whole, 'they sell slogans but gay marriage slogans weren't on the menu' thing... the product they sell is customized slogans. So does the customer have a reasonable expectation to be served regardless of whether or not their slogan references gay marriage? Based on the law, yes they do. And as business owners it's the law they have to follow, their personal experiences of encountering gay people is irrelevant. Same as their personal views, or geography etc... the law doesn't stop applying to someone because they're not used to it or don't believe in it. They have every right to be surprised at the request, or to feel personally/morally/religiously against it, but none of those things change the law/what is reasonable for their customers to expect/their responsibilities as business owners.

(edit: sorry I know that's all completely off topic)

However if gay marriage is against the law in that country then making a cake with a gay marriage slogan is endorsing crime.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Why do I need more information when religion does not validate gender nor race discrimination? Nothing I am told about their religion will validate discrimination.

Precisely why i was saying the outrage on this thread is stupid, thanks for eloquetly proving my point.

There was no discrimination here (at least from the male monks' side) and researching this or reading through the thread would have told you this. It was quite the opposite to discrimination and we know this because of the buddhist teachings of sunyata.

I completely understand why you would be upset if you only take information from one side of the story, but ignoring the other half and still being outraged is childish.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Withano

Precisely why i was saying the outrage on this thread is stupid, thanks for eloquetly proving my point.

There was no discrimination here (at least from the male monks' side) and researching this or reading through the thread would have told you this. It was quite the opposite to discrimination and we know this because of the buddhist teachings of sunyata.

I completely understand why you would be upset if you only take information from one side of the story, but ignoring the other half and still being outraged is childish.

It doesn't matter what the monks intention was or was not, (for the last time) what they did by refusing to sit next to a woman is sexual discrimination. Calling people who don't share you opinions stupid is childish.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

However if gay marriage is against the law in that country then making a cake with a gay marriage slogan is endorsing crime.

It's not endorsing a crime... even though gay marriage itself wasn't legalised, campaigning for it was perfectly legal. So the bakery weren't being asked to do anything that would contradict with any law; they weren't being asked to conduct a marriage ceremony, or endorse a marriage that was due to take place illegally, they were being asked to produce a slogan that was associated with a campaign (which again, is completely legal).
And there was no implication that by producing the slogan they would even be endorsing the cause, just as the case would have been for any other political/social etc slogan, they'd have produced it because it's what the customer wanted and it's the service they were offering - everything from the customers side was in line with the law as well as being what they'd reasonably expect from the business (which includes expecting that the business owners wouldn't consider themselves above the law because of their personal/religious beliefs and free to discriminate at will because of them, which is essentially how they acted and what their defense was).

[Withano]

Originally Posted by jaxie

It doesn't matter what the monks intention was or was not, (for the last time) what they did by refusing to sit next to a woman is sexual discrimination. Calling people who don't share you opinions stupid is childish.

Firstly, Ive never called anybody here stupid. Ive labelled their outrage stupid because it is. I also think its stupid to call excessive respect for somebody 'discriminatory'. Theyre obviously two different things.

Your opinion sort if contradicts itself.. Like shouting at somebody for not holding the door open for you and then shouting at them for opening the next one for you because youre capable of doing it yourself!

But if thats the conclusion you came to after understanding their perspective, then fine. Youve done more than most in this thread by at least acknowledging two sides.. but i just dont think you can cry for gender equality when youre ignoring social and cultural equality.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

It's not endorsing a crime... even though gay marriage itself wasn't legalised, campaigning for it was perfectly legal. So the bakery weren't being asked to do anything that would contradict with any law; they weren't being asked to conduct a marriage ceremony, or endorse a marriage that was due to take place illegally, they were being asked to produce a slogan that was associated with a campaign (which again, is completely legal).
And there was no implication that by producing the slogan they would even be endorsing the cause, just as the case would have been for any other political/social etc slogan, they'd have produced it because it's what the customer wanted and it's the service they were offering - everything from the customers side was in line with the law as well as being what they'd reasonably expect from the business (which includes expecting that the business owners wouldn't consider themselves above the law because of their personal/religious beliefs and free to discriminate at will because of them, which is essentially how they acted and what their defense was).

I know i'm just joking around now.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

I know i'm just joking around now.