Christian Bakery vs Queerspace
Discussion
BIANCO said:
So if a pedo goes in and asked for a cake saying “let's make kiddy porn legal”. The law says they can't say no if they disagree?
There's a law about prejudice against homosexuals, ethnic minorities, gender equality etc. Are Paedophiles a protected group in law?This ridiculous point has been raised about 20 times thru this thread. Would a Jewish baker have to produce a Nazi cake, would a Muslim baker have to produce a Chalie Hebdo cake. Now we have paedo cakes.
What is it about protected groups in law that people just cannot grasp?
It's just such a moronic argument.
V6Pushfit said:
See Matt Bianco's response above, plus a dim view of an over PC society being railroaded into feeling persecuted by anybody who perceives they are being slighted or their 'rights' infringed.
If he couldn't get a gay cake there why didn't he go to another baker like any normal person would? - oh wait he'd sue for the bus fare as well. I have only one word: Diddums
I suppose diddums is better than 'ponce off', 'wave their handbags' and asking 'are you gay then?'.If he couldn't get a gay cake there why didn't he go to another baker like any normal person would? - oh wait he'd sue for the bus fare as well. I have only one word: Diddums
TwigtheWonderkid said:
There's a law about prejudice against homosexuals, ethnic minorities, gender equality etc. Are Paedophiles a protected group in law?
This ridiculous point has been raised about 20 times thru this thread. Would a Jewish baker have to produce a Nazi cake, would a Muslim baker have to produce a Chalie Hebdo cake. Now we have paedo cakes.
What is it about protected groups in law that people just cannot grasp?
It's just such a moronic argument.
Just to try and clear this particular misunderstanding up once and for all, Ched Evans was recently refused employment at several football clubs because he was, at the time, a convicted rapist. If he wasn't a convicted rapist, but a homosexual, the clubs could not have refused him employment for that reason.This ridiculous point has been raised about 20 times thru this thread. Would a Jewish baker have to produce a Nazi cake, would a Muslim baker have to produce a Chalie Hebdo cake. Now we have paedo cakes.
What is it about protected groups in law that people just cannot grasp?
It's just such a moronic argument.
That's because in law you can discriminate against rapists, paedos, Nazis, but not homosexuals, jews, Asians, blacks, women, etc.
I hope the hard of thinking can grasp this.
chrispmartha said:
BIANCO said:
So if a pedo goes in and asked for a cake saying “let's make kiddy porn legal”. The law says they can't say no if they disagree?
This forum is actually going beyond parody.A. What is a pedo?
B. I'm presuming you mean peadophile, so you equate a homosexual person with a peadophile?
C. You are an idiot
I doubt he means someone sexually attracted to small green vegetables.
There's no doubt the complainants were evangelistic activists (witness their association with a certain organised 'club'). There's no doubt they expected a refusal at some stage and were waiting for it. The whole thing was a set-up and therefore vexatious.
You would think, if you were reasonably minded that the watchdogs for the homosexual lobby, for which this kind of thing has become a sole reason for existence (amongst many other 'isms'), would come to the realisation that they do their cause more harm than benefit by their histrionic antics. When the most prominent homosexual lobbyist, Tatchell, criticises these idiots (the original complainants) and decries the outcome, a certain air of manufactured faux rage pervades and leaves an awful stink. They become a laughing stock and lose all credibility.
What a shame. It only produces acres of print, diatribes of pointless argument on line and resentment all round leading to a pyrrhic victory. Add to that all the pitiful virtue signalling and you get a view of us from the other end of the telescope.
You would think, if you were reasonably minded that the watchdogs for the homosexual lobby, for which this kind of thing has become a sole reason for existence (amongst many other 'isms'), would come to the realisation that they do their cause more harm than benefit by their histrionic antics. When the most prominent homosexual lobbyist, Tatchell, criticises these idiots (the original complainants) and decries the outcome, a certain air of manufactured faux rage pervades and leaves an awful stink. They become a laughing stock and lose all credibility.
What a shame. It only produces acres of print, diatribes of pointless argument on line and resentment all round leading to a pyrrhic victory. Add to that all the pitiful virtue signalling and you get a view of us from the other end of the telescope.
768 said:
chrispmartha said:
BIANCO said:
So if a pedo goes in and asked for a cake saying “let's make kiddy porn legal”. The law says they can't say no if they disagree?
This forum is actually going beyond parody.A. What is a pedo?
B. I'm presuming you mean peadophile, so you equate a homosexual person with a peadophile?
C. You are an idiot
I doubt he means someone sexually attracted to small green vegetables.
Thorodin said:
There's no doubt the complainants were evangelistic activists (witness their association with a certain organised 'club'). There's no doubt they expected a refusal at some stage and were waiting for it. The whole thing was a set-up and therefore vexatious.
You would think, if you were reasonably minded that the watchdogs for the homosexual lobby, for which this kind of thing has become a sole reason for existence (amongst many other 'isms'), would come to the realisation that they do their cause more harm than benefit by their histrionic antics. When the most prominent homosexual lobbyist, Tatchell, criticises these idiots (the original complainants) and decries the outcome, a certain air of manufactured faux rage pervades and leaves an awful stink. They become a laughing stock and lose all credibility.
What a shame. It only produces acres of print, diatribes of pointless argument on line and resentment all round leading to a pyrrhic victory. Add to that all the pitiful virtue signalling and you get a view of us from the other end of the telescope.
Eloquently put.You would think, if you were reasonably minded that the watchdogs for the homosexual lobby, for which this kind of thing has become a sole reason for existence (amongst many other 'isms'), would come to the realisation that they do their cause more harm than benefit by their histrionic antics. When the most prominent homosexual lobbyist, Tatchell, criticises these idiots (the original complainants) and decries the outcome, a certain air of manufactured faux rage pervades and leaves an awful stink. They become a laughing stock and lose all credibility.
What a shame. It only produces acres of print, diatribes of pointless argument on line and resentment all round leading to a pyrrhic victory. Add to that all the pitiful virtue signalling and you get a view of us from the other end of the telescope.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Just to try and clear this particular misunderstanding up once and for all, Ched Evans was recently refused employment at several football clubs because he was, at the time, a convicted rapist. If he wasn't a convicted rapist, but a homosexual, the clubs could not have refused him employment for that reason.
That's because in law you can discriminate against rapists, paedos, Nazis, but not homosexuals, jews, Asians, blacks, women, etc.
I hope the hard of thinking can grasp this.
So you honestly believe that a Muslim baker who refused to create a Charlie Hebdo cake would be taken to court in the same way as the Christian bakers have been? What about a golf club that refuses women? Or a gym that refuses men?That's because in law you can discriminate against rapists, paedos, Nazis, but not homosexuals, jews, Asians, blacks, women, etc.
I hope the hard of thinking can grasp this.
Just highlighting, as others are trying to, that this is a complex issue and a slippery-slope precedent has been set. It could have avoided becoming a complex issue is a) a little common sense was invoked and b) a militant pro-gay group hadn't got involved to try to prove a point.
As I said before, this does nothing to reduce discrimination in society. Quite the opposite in fact.
Boring_Chris said:
So.... gay people are being lumped in with pedos now?
Only in the same way that heterosexuals, bisexuals and any other sexuality are.I believe the point made was based on the school of thought that paedophiles have a sexual preference for children that is part of their make up in the same way as any other sexuality (whether this notion is correct or not is another matter).
Would I be right in thinking that the law protects everyone from discrimination based on their sexuality? Or are homosexuals specifically a protected group based on their sexuality that, for example, heterosexuals are not?
If the former then in the case of paedophilia, paedophiles would enjoy the same protection from discrimination as anyone else.
This is, I believe, the point that the poster was trying to make.
skahigh said:
Boring_Chris said:
So.... gay people are being lumped in with pedos now?
Only in the same way that heterosexuals, bisexuals and any other sexuality are.I believe the point made was based on the school of thought that paedophiles have a sexual preference for children that is part of their make up in the same way as any other sexuality (whether this notion is correct or not is another matter).
Would I be right in thinking that the law protects everyone from discrimination based on their sexuality? Or are homosexuals specifically a protected group based on their sexuality that, for example, heterosexuals are not?
If the former then in the case of paedophilia, paedophiles would enjoy the same protection from discrimination as anyone else.
This is, I believe, the point that the poster was trying to make.
But unlike the other 'categories' of sexuality, paedophiles cannot legally allow their sexuality 'into action'.
The rights of the objects of their desire vastly outweigh the rights of a paedophile to be a paedophile in any way other than in their head.
skahigh said:
If the former then in the case of paedophilia, paedophiles would enjoy the same protection from discrimination as anyone else.
This is, I believe, the point that the poster was trying to make.
I'll bet that they do, you know. Until the point they commit an offence. After that it is a different matter...This is, I believe, the point that the poster was trying to make.
SpeckledJim said:
I think you're correct.
But unlike the other 'categories' of sexuality, paedophiles cannot legally allow their sexuality 'into action'.
The rights of the objects of their desire vastly outweigh the rights of a paedophile to be a paedophile in any way other than in their head.
Indeed, but the question that was posed was whether a paedophile could be legally denied a service to produce a cake lobbying for a change in the law regarding paedophilia.But unlike the other 'categories' of sexuality, paedophiles cannot legally allow their sexuality 'into action'.
The rights of the objects of their desire vastly outweigh the rights of a paedophile to be a paedophile in any way other than in their head.
That every right minded person would find the message abhorrent doesn't change the fact that the message itself would not be illegal and so the service could not be denied. This is where the poster was drawing parallels with the case in question.
wiggy001 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Just to try and clear this particular misunderstanding up once and for all, Ched Evans was recently refused employment at several football clubs because he was, at the time, a convicted rapist. If he wasn't a convicted rapist, but a homosexual, the clubs could not have refused him employment for that reason.
That's because in law you can discriminate against rapists, paedos, Nazis, but not homosexuals, jews, Asians, blacks, women, etc.
I hope the hard of thinking can grasp this.
So you honestly believe that a Muslim baker who refused to create a Charlie Hebdo cake would be taken to court in the same way as the Christian bakers have been? That's because in law you can discriminate against rapists, paedos, Nazis, but not homosexuals, jews, Asians, blacks, women, etc.
I hope the hard of thinking can grasp this.
That's it, I throw in the towel. It's very rarely that I say this, but I am actually too clever for this thread!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff