[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?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Alf

You will do as your told.

We will decide how your business is run.

We are the dictators.



Basically.

All opinions come with consequences, if you are going to be bigoted in a business setting then you'll have to potentially deal with a lawsuit since you are breaking discrimination laws.

It's quite worrying that you see people facing consequences for discrimination as signs of a dictatorship in all honesty. Quite worrying indeed.

Originally Posted by Cherie

I look forward to the day bakers with Islamic faith are treated the same as other faiths in these situations 135,000 for trauma

They would be treated the same if it was the same situation IE religious owners of a non-religious business. If the owners of the original story's bakery was called 'Sweet Cakes Christian Bakery' then it would be foolish to expect them to make a cake that would fly in the face of their belief but it isn't a Christian Bakery.

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?

I think that's a silly inflamatory hypothetical situation.

If the business itself wasn't Hindu based then I'd expect them to make cakes with eggs since it would suggest they aren't devout since they wouldn't open a general bakery otherwise as they'd be expected to work with eggs every day, they'd probably opt for a specialist bakery instead and if that's the case, complaining about a lack of eggs would be like going to a vegetarian restaurant and getting mad about them not serving meat products.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

All opinions come with consequences, if you are going to be bigoted in a business setting then you'll have to potentially deal with a lawsuit since you are breaking discrimination laws.

It's quite worrying that you see people facing consequences for discrimination as signs of a dictatorship in all honesty. Quite worrying indeed.



They would be treated the same if it was the same situation IE religious owners of a non-religious business. If the owners of the original story's bakery was called 'Sweet Cakes Christian Bakery' then it would be foolish to expect them to make a cake that would fly in the face of their belief but it isn't a Christian Bakery.



I think that's a silly inflamatory hypothetical situation.

If the business itself wasn't Hindu based then I'd expect them to make cakes with eggs since it would suggest they aren't devout since they wouldn't open a general bakery otherwise as they'd be expected to work with eggs every day, they'd probably opt for a specialist bakery instead and if that's the case, complaining about a lack of eggs would be like going to a vegetarian restaurant and getting mad about them not serving meat products.

It's neither silly nor inflammatory as it has happened to me, they didn't have any signage to say they were a specialist bakery, they just redirected me elsewhere and like most normal people I accepted it. This issue is actually trivialising real discrimation and for me it looks like they were looking for a payday rather than actually highlighting discrimination.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Cherie

It's neither silly nor inflammatory as it has happened to me, they didn't have any signage to say they were a specialist bakery, they just redirected me elsewhere and like most normal people I accepted it. This issue is actually trivialising real discrimation and for me it looks like they were looking for a payday rather than actually highlighting discrimination.

Of course it is silly, you're comparing being denied service because of an egg to being denied service because of a person's sexuality, it's silly to think that people should accept homophobia like you'd accept a bakery not dealing with eggs.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Of course it is silly, you're comparing being denied service because of an egg to being denied service because of a person's sexuality, it's silly to think that people should accept homophobia like you'd accept a bakery not dealing with eggs.

Its not silly its the same principal, they haven't advertised themselves as specialist bakers so therefore they should technically sell me whatever cake I want as that seems to be the argument here.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Its not silly its the same principal, they haven't advertised themselves as specialist bakers so therefore they should technically sell me whatever cake I want as that seems to be the argument here.

It's different because in your case, you wanted a specific ingredient and that ingredient was refused. They didn't refuse to serve you because of who you are. There's similarities in that religion comes into both scenarios but the principle is very different.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

It's neither silly nor inflammatory as it has happened to me, they didn't have any signage to say they were a specialist bakery, they just redirected me elsewhere and like most normal people I accepted it. This issue is actually trivialising real discrimation and for me it looks like they were looking for a payday rather than actually highlighting discrimination.

Cherie this is real discrimination, this is what it looks like.
As a rule those being discriminated against don't take the matter this far, personally I'm happy that these people had the courage to do so.

Their religious observance only became apparent as a counter, with a Hindu bakery that would not be the case as they obviously would not have any egg related items for sale, so basically they have no obligation to sell you something they don't have.

[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.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

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



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.

Wrong

the bakers claim as follows
he bakers said their refusal to bake for the couple was prompted by religious beliefs. Nothing to do with their sexuality. One communities rights are being held up as more deserving than another in this instance

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Wrong

the bakers claim as follows
he bakers said their refusal to bake for the couple was prompted by religious beliefs. Nothing to do with their sexuality. One communities rights are being held up as more deserving than another in this instance

That was the bakers stance in order to try and get off, but what was found by law to be the case, was...

It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal

It's not ok to discriminate against people and blame your religion, and that's not infringing on the religious persons rights. They still have the right to believe whatever they want, what they don't have the right to do is actively discriminate against people.

One communities rights are being held up as more deserving than another in this instance

The comparison being made here isn't valid, religious peoples right to discriminate is not equal to a gay persons right to shop without fear of being refused service on the basis of their sexuality (just as a religious person shouldn't be refused service in a shop based on them being religious). They aren't having their right to religious belief being taken away from them... they seem to believe that their religion carries with it a right to discriminate... it doesn't.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Wrong

the bakers claim as follows
he bakers said their refusal to bake for the couple was prompted by religious beliefs. Nothing to do with their sexuality. One communities rights are being held up as more deserving than another in this instance

Oh come on, that one's a stretch. Yes it's their religious beliefs, but it's their religious beliefs REGARDING sexually. You can't say it has nothing to do with sexuality ... What a bizarre statement Cherie.

Though to reiterate I don't think this should be a legal issue. I do think they deserve to go out of business for their prejudice but I'd prefer it to be the old fashioned way; through poor word of mouth and being boycotted for being homophobic, rather than the courts getting involved.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Oh come on, that one's a stretch. Yes it's their religious beliefs, but it's their religious beliefs REGARDING sexually. You can't say it has nothing to do with sexuality ... What a bizarre statement Cherie.

Though to reiterate I don't think this should be a legal issue. I do think they deserve to go out of business for their prejudice but I'd prefer it to be the old fashioned way; through poor word of mouth and being boycotted for being homophobic, rather than the courts getting involved.

I worry though that a lot of people actually wouldn't be bothered enough for bad word of mouth to have any kind of impact on their business... if this hadn't gone through the courts would many people even have heard about it? Sure there might have been a facebook post that picked up some traction or something but I doubt there'd have been any lasting impact, in fact it would probably have drawn a lot of people to them (judging by their 'go fund me'). In an ideal world I'd agree but surely one of the reasons we have courts is to stop discrimination because being left to themselves, people like this and certain communities would just perpetuate it and it would get worse, not better, on it's own?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I worry though that a lot of people actually wouldn't be bothered enough for bad word of mouth to have any kind of impact on their business... if this hadn't gone through the courts would many people even have heard about it? Sure there might have been a facebook post that picked up some traction or something but I doubt there'd have been any lasting impact, in fact it would probably have drawn a lot of people to them (judging by their 'go fund me'). In an ideal world I'd agree but surely one of the reasons we have courts is to stop discrimination because being left to themselves, people like this and certain communities would just perpetuate it and it would get worse, not better, on it's own?

Perhaps true but then I start to have trouble with the idea of people not being authentic by obligation. I want to know where my money is going, I want to know what sort of people I am supporting by giving them my custom... I don't like the idea that I am happily handing over money to people with repulsive views, unknowingly, because they have to bury those views by law. Basically I would rather people did feel confident in sharing their unsavoury views if only to simplify the process of knowing who to avoid.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Oh come on, that one's a stretch. Yes it's their religious beliefs, but it's their religious beliefs REGARDING sexually. You can't say it has nothing to do with sexuality ... What a bizarre statement Cherie.

Though to reiterate I don't think this should be a legal issue. I do think they deserve to go out of business for their prejudice but I'd prefer it to be the old fashioned way; through poor word of mouth and being boycotted for being homophobic, rather than the courts getting involved.

Why is it stretch to to believe they follow the teachings of the bible, we have no problem with other faiths following their faiths to the letter but when it comes to Christian beliefs it's 'nah mate, thems homophobic innit". rather than accepting they might actually want to follow their bible

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Why is it stretch to to believe they follow the teachings of the bible, we have no problem with other faiths following their faiths to the letter but when it comes to Christian beliefs it's 'nah mate, thems homophobic innit". rather than accepting they might actually want to follow their bible

It really is a concern, when the historical majority faith of this country is treated as having less importance and less rights than those of minority faiths in the country.

People can't be tolerant to some religous beliefs and not others - that in itself is discrimination.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

It really is a concern, when the historical majority faith of this country is treated as having less importance and less rights than those of minority faiths in the country.

People can't be tolerant to some religous beliefs and not others - that in itself is discrimination.

Since when was sexuality a faith?...

Do you mean the marginalised should just accept being marginalised as that's how it was, is and forever shall be?... pfffft!