Christian Bakery vs Queerspace

[SpeckledJim]

Eric Mc said:

Be careful there. Having illegal thoughts can be construed by some people as carrying out illegal acts.

There are no illegal thoughts.

[Eric Mc]

SpeckledJim said:

There are no illegal thoughts.

Not so sure. "Intent" is a very strong point when deciding a level of criminality. "Intention" is based on thoughts.

[brrapp]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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 it, I throw in the towel. It's very rarely that I say this, but I am actually too clever for this thread!

Why? Isn't Charlie Hebdo gay?

[SpeckledJim]

skahigh said:

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.

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.

Not sure, I think that's a difficult question. I can see the argument from the adult's 'right to their god-given sexuality' angle, and their right to campaign for it.

But is incitement to child abuse a thing?

And if it is, how could part A be enacted without incurring part B?

[popeyewhite]

SpeckledJim said:

popeyewhite said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Dress it up how you wish. Decent people know to leave their personal prejudices at home and not to bring them into work.

If they don't get the service they wish for from a Baker decent people just go to another one. Decent people respect the beliefs and values of others.

Whereas bakers...

...who have Christian beliefs and are decent people quite rightly feel they don't have to adorn a cake with a message that offends them. All this sorry episode teaches us is that the Christian faith, which has basically influenced our entire way of life over centuries, has been further undermined by the loud litigious PC minority that society seems cowed to at the moment. Should a business cease to trade because of writing on a cake?

[SpeckledJim]

Eric Mc said:

SpeckledJim said:

There are no illegal thoughts.

Not so sure. "Intent" is a very strong point when deciding a level of criminality. "Intention" is based on thoughts.

There aren't illegal thoughts. Planning a crime is different - that's essentially an action.

I can intend to speed on the way home. There's nothing wrong until I actually speed on the way home.

Then if I say I intended to see how fast my car was I might rightly get harsher treatment than if I say I accidentally strayed over the limit, and I'm sorry.

[Mario149]

popeyewhite said:

Should a business cease to trade because of writing on a cake?

IMO, frankly yes. If you run a business, you leave your sky fairy beliefs/rabid atheism/whatever at home and act like a grown up and be bloody professional at your job. If putting a completely legal political slogan on a cake that in no way represents your views or requires your support offends you enough that you won't do it, you've got some big issues in your life, you shouldn't be running a business and should probably instead be seeking psychological help.

[Eric Mc]

SpeckledJim said:

There aren't illegal thoughts. Planning a crime is different - that's essentially an action.

I can intend to speed on the way home. There's nothing wrong until I actually speed on the way home.

Then if I say I intended to see how fast my car was I might rightly get harsher treatment than if I say I accidentally strayed over the limit, and I'm sorry.

"Intention" matters a huge amount in cases where someone was physically harmed or even killed.

[Eric Mc]

Mario149 said:

IMO, frankly yes. If you run a business, you leave your sky fairy beliefs/rabid atheism/whatever at home and act like a grown up and be bloody professional at your job. If putting a completely legal political slogan on a cake that in no way represents your views or requires your support offends you enough that you won't do it, you've got some big issues in your life, you shouldn't be running a business and should probably instead be seeking psychological help.

So, professional leave ethics at home when they go to work?

I'd better reread my Ethics Manual from the ACCA then. I must have missed that bit

[alock]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Disabled people (including the blind) are also protected. Has anyone tried using the Queer Space website while using a blindfold and a screen reader? It's full of syntax errors which makes it hard for a tool to programmatically understand the hierarchy and also contains multiple images without alternative text They're relying on the fact that they are not providing a paid service to mitigate their own discrimination of whole groups of people.

[popeyewhite]

Mario149 said:

IMO, frankly yes. If you run a business, you leave your sky fairy beliefs/rabid atheism/whatever at home and act like a grown up and be bloody professional at your job. If putting a completely legal political slogan on a cake that in no way represents your views or requires your support offends you enough that you won't do it,

Now you'll merely have to invent an excuse?

Mario149 said:

you've got some big issues in your life,

It's not a big issue - it's against someone's beliefs. Just like believing in the sky fairy is against yours.

Mario149 said:

you shouldn't be running a business and should probably instead be seeking psychological help.

Believe me that alone is not cause to seek therapy.

[irocfan]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

if you went to a gay run bakery would this actually constitute homophobia?

[otolith]

Eric Mc said:

Mario149 said:

IMO, frankly yes. If you run a business, you leave your sky fairy beliefs/rabid atheism/whatever at home and act like a grown up and be bloody professional at your job. If putting a completely legal political slogan on a cake that in no way represents your views or requires your support offends you enough that you won't do it, you've got some big issues in your life, you shouldn't be running a business and should probably instead be seeking psychological help.

So, professional leave ethics at home when they go to work?

I'd better reread my Ethics Manual from the ACCA then. I must have missed that bit

You mean the ethics manual that tells you how you ought to behave in a professional context instead of relying upon your own personal beliefs?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Absolutely. The judge addressed this. A gay owned bakery that was happy to produce cakes with pro gay marriage slogans would have to produce a cake with an anti gay marriage slogan if requested.

They can't refuse because the message goes against their personal beliefs. Which is how it should be.

[irocfan]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Absolutely. The judge addressed this. A gay owned bakery that was happy to produce cakes with pro gay marriage slogans would have to produce a cake with an anti gay marriage slogan if requested.

They can't refuse because the message goes against their personal beliefs. Which is how it should be.

Twiggy old chap, what happened?...

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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!

[Eric Mc]

otolith said:

You mean the ethics manual that tells you how you ought to behave in a professional context instead of relying upon your own personal beliefs?

Ethics are matters I hold personally as well.

One of the ethics pointed out is "What happens if you don't want to deal with a particular client's request because you have an ethical problem with it"?

For instance, you have a business rule that you don't get involved in political campaigning - for whatever reason.

Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 26th October 14:17

[SpeckledJim]

Eric Mc said:

SpeckledJim said:

There aren't illegal thoughts. Planning a crime is different - that's essentially an action.

I can intend to speed on the way home. There's nothing wrong until I actually speed on the way home.

Then if I say I intended to see how fast my car was I might rightly get harsher treatment than if I say I accidentally strayed over the limit, and I'm sorry.

"Intention" matters a huge amount in cases where someone was physically harmed or even killed.

So what? You can't hurt someone by thinking about hurting someone, so the point stands - no illegal thoughts.

[Eric Mc]

SpeckledJim said:

So what? You can't hurt someone by thinking about hurting someone, so the point stands - no illegal thoughts.

No it doesn't stand. In the cases I've mentioned somebody has already been hurt - or killed.

The thought process behind the action that resulted in the injury or death is often extremely pertinent to the result of a court case.

So "thoughts", "frame of mind", "mental attitude" , "intention" etc are VERY important consideration in certain aspects of applying justice.

To the point where the thought process behind an event can lead to the person walking free - or serving life.

[SpeckledJim]

Eric Mc said:

SpeckledJim said:

So what? You can't hurt someone by thinking about hurting someone, so the point stands - no illegal thoughts.

No it doesn't stand. In the cases I've mentioned somebody has already been hurt - or killed.

The thought process behind the action that resulted in the injury or death is often extremely pertinent to the result of a court case.

So "thoughts", "frame of mind", "mental attitude" , "intention" etc are VERY important consideration ion certain aspects of applying justice.

To the point where the thought process behind an event can lead to the person walking free - or serving life.

Can you point us to any case ever where some has thought something and then been convicted of having an illegal thought?

(excluding conspiracy, planning terrorism, etc - they are deeds/actions, not mere thoughts.)

[SpeckledJim]

BIANCO said:

What I don't like about it, is a group of people who where once persecuted for the way they thought are now persecuting others for there's.

Not thoughts though, is it? Actions.

Even the judge said everyone is free to think whatever they want.

So what you 'don't like about it' isn't even part of the issue. Another brain fart. 2/2.