Christian Bakery vs Queerspace

[TwigtheWonderkid]

irocfan said:

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!

I know, I know. But Toxicnerve raised a rare (for this thread) sensible question that I knew the answer to so I answered it.

I'm like Al Pacino in Godfather III....I thought I was out....but they sucked me back in.

[anonymous-user]

wiggy001 said:

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.

Absolutely

[Eric Mc]

ViperDave said:

Well as the judge pointed out in this case, that was their legal remedy. They could have changed the offer such that it was not discriminatory by not offering cakes with political messages. But they wanted their cake and eat it by being prepared to make a support heterosexual marriage cake, which made their actions discriminatory against the gay community who were intrinsically linked to the message.

It wasn't what they did. It was the reason they did it that was their undoing. In other words, it was their THOUGHTS that scuppered them.

George Orwell must be laughing his socks of.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eric Mc said:

It wasn't what they did. It was the reason they did it that was their undoing. In other words, it was their THOUGHTS that scuppered them.

More tripe.

They can think what they like. We don't have thought crime yet. But they acted on those thoughts. It was their ACTIONS that scuppered them

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eric Mc said:

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

That's fine. You don't have to. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case in this situation. They didn't refuse because they never baked cakes with political slogans, they refused because they didn't agree with a pro gay cause.

[Eric Mc]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

More tripe.

They can think what they like. We don't have thought crime yet. But they acted on those thoughts. It was their ACTIONS that scuppered them

I thought you'd gone away.

And calm down a bit. You're losing the run of yourself.

Their actions were PREDICATED by their thoughts. People aren't zombies. It was their thoughts that got them into trouble. If they had carried out THE SAME ACT but for different reasons, they would not have had a problem.

As has been pointed out. They could have refused the cake for legitimate reasons. But their reasoning (i.e. their thoughts) were deemed not legitimate.

[SpeckledJim]

Eric Mc said:

It wasn't what they did. It was the reason they did it that was their undoing. In other words, it was their THOUGHTS that scuppered them.

Troll. Nobody with SPAG as reasonable as yours can be honestly concluding this.

[otolith]

Eric Mc said:

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.

That business rule is part of the ethical code of the business. You might have a rule that you don't do accounts for arms dealers. That might not agree with the ethics of the employees. It may not even agree with the ethics of the owners of the business. But when you have your professional hat on, you obey that rule. Even if you are the sole employee and sole owner. And that's all fine. There is no legal protection for arms dealers in this respect. Where you may have a problem is where you have created a business rule which falls foul of anti-discrimination legislation. I suspect a firm refusing to do the accounts for Queerspace and being dumb and arrogant enough to admit that it's because they consider homosexuality to be an abomination on biblical grounds would be in trouble. In Ireland, at least.

[ViperDave]

V6Pushfit said:

wiggy001 said:

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.

Absolutely

Oh that old chestnut of if we do this one thing that most are or should be doing anyway, then it will inevitably lead us down a slippery slope where ultimately the sky falls down and paedophiles get to chose their own cake slogans.

[SpeckledJim]

Eric Mc said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

More tripe.

They can think what they like. We don't have thought crime yet. But they acted on those thoughts. It was their ACTIONS that scuppered them

I thought you'd gone away.

And calm down a bit. You're losing the run of yourself.

Their actions were PREDICATED by their thoughts. People aren't zombies. It was their thoughts that got them into trouble. If they had carried out THE SAME ACT but for different reasons, they would not have had a problem.

As has been pointed out. They could have refused the cake for legitimate reasons. But their reasoning (i.e. their thoughts) were deemed not legitimate.

They've had these THOUGHTS for decades without issue.

It was when their ACTIONS impacted somebody that they got hauled-up for it.

[anonymous-user]

ViperDave said:

V6Pushfit said:

wiggy001 said:

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.

Absolutely

Oh that old chestnut of if we do this one thing that most are or should be doing anyway, then it will inevitably lead us down a slippery slope where ultimately the sky falls down and paedophiles get to chose their own cake slogans.

And points a) and b)?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eric Mc said:

Their actions were PREDICATED by their thoughts.

Are you on midbending drugs?

Everyone's actions are premeditated by their thoughts. Cerebral palsy sufferers (and other conditions where your body doesn't obey your brain) excepted.

Perhaps Ian Huntley could claim your defence.....it was his thoughts that scuppered him. He thought he'd kill those 2 poor girls, the actions were irrelevant!


You really are scraping the bottom of the stupidity barrel with some of your comments.

[wiggy001]

ViperDave said:

V6Pushfit said:

wiggy001 said:

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.

Absolutely

Oh that old chestnut of if we do this one thing that most are or should be doing anyway, then it will inevitably lead us down a slippery slope where ultimately the sky falls down and paedophiles get to chose their own cake slogans.

Put your condescending rollseyes away, they're really not necessary and make you look silly when you've not thought about the point I was making. Which is this:

If we constantly pander to minority groups, as has been in vogue for many years now, resentment will build within the majority. There are people out there suffering real discrimination and that needs addressing. Homophobia has no place in the 21st century and should be tackled.

But this case does not help fight homophobia because it is not a real case of discrimination (not against the gay community, anyway). It is a set up scenario to provoke a reaction and generate column inches for a pro-gay organisation.

So what I can very easily see happening is certain minority groups targeting other businesses to generate similar column inches and put people out of business for their "cause". Would you be surprised if a women's group took an all-male golf club to court on the grounds of discrimination when they have no desire to be members? What would surprise me if is a pro-male group tackled the blatant discrimination of all-women gyms. Except they wouldn't, because the majority don't feel the need to play these pathetic games.

But then I'm not as clever as you or Twig, so I'm sure you'll come back some some witty retort (accompanied by rolly eyes)...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

wiggy001 said:

But this case does not help fight homophobia because it is not a real case of discrimination (not against the gay community, anyway). It is a set up scenario to provoke a reaction and generate column inches for a pro-gay organisation.

You're half right.

Yes, it was a set up to provoke a reaction. And gain publicity for a cause. But the legal precedent it set will help fight real homophobia in the future, and make real people's lives better.

[sidicks]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You're half right.

Yes, it was a set up to provoke a reaction. And gain publicity for a cause. But the legal precedent it set will help fight real homophobia in the future, and make real people's lives better.

What sort of 'real homophobia' are you talking about. Where does this manifest itself?

[George111]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

wiggy001 said:

But this case does not help fight homophobia because it is not a real case of discrimination (not against the gay community, anyway). It is a set up scenario to provoke a reaction and generate column inches for a pro-gay organisation.

You're half right.

Yes, it was a set up to provoke a reaction. And gain publicity for a cause. But the legal precedent it set will help fight real homophobia in the future, and make real people's lives better.

He's just explained why this is not the case. Do you not read ? Perhaps more time reading less time hitting the keyboard

[jonby]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

wiggy001 said:

But this case does not help fight homophobia because it is not a real case of discrimination (not against the gay community, anyway). It is a set up scenario to provoke a reaction and generate column inches for a pro-gay organisation.

You're half right.

Yes, it was a set up to provoke a reaction. And gain publicity for a cause. But the legal precedent it set will help fight real homophobia in the future, and make real people's lives better.

One of the real shames in all this is that at it's heart, we have a business run by devout Christians who appear to have no problem in serving gay customers or having gay employees, suffering at the hands of a deliberate set up by a group who had an ulterior motive, which may well help set up a precedent which achieves a greater good, but creates a victim out of people I feel sorry for and leaves a 'win' for people who have behaved in an underhand manner

Regardless of what the law says and how this result will influence implementation of the law, the whole episode leaves me very uncomfortable, especially as a business owner

All it will lead to is for the more savvy businesses creating artificial excuses to refuse customer orders to get around the law, in much the same way that a business with racist owners will work round the laws on discrimination when interviewing for prospective employees to ensure they aren't 'caught out'

Surely it's better to address the heart of the issue in each instance (i.e. discrimination), instead of just creating a culture of 'how do we get round the law'. I recognise that's a somewhat idealistic stance of course

[Eric Mc]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Are you on midbending drugs?

Everyone's actions are premeditated by their thoughts. Cerebral palsy sufferers (and other conditions where your body doesn't obey your brain) excepted.

Perhaps Ian Huntley could claim your defence.....it was his thoughts that scuppered him. He thought he'd kill those 2 poor girls, the actions were irrelevant!


You really are scraping the bottom of the stupidity barrel with some of your comments.

I'll leave you alone. You can't obviously debate anything without hurling insults. I'd prefer to be considered stupid than rude.

[ViperDave]

T

wiggy001 said:

Put your condescending rollseyes away, they're really not necessary and make you look silly when you've not thought about the point I was making. Which is this:

If we constantly pander to minority groups, as has been in vogue for many years now, resentment will build within the majority. There are people out there suffering real discrimination and that needs addressing. Homophobia has no place in the 21st century and should be tackled.

But this case does not help fight homophobia because it is not a real case of discrimination (not against the gay community, anyway). It is a set up scenario to provoke a reaction and generate column inches for a pro-gay organisation.

So what I can very easily see happening is certain minority groups targeting other businesses to generate similar column inches and put people out of business for their "cause". Would you be surprised if a women's group took an all-male golf club to court on the grounds of discrimination when they have no desire to be members? What would surprise me if is a pro-male group tackled the blatant discrimination of all-women gyms. Except they wouldn't, because the majority don't feel the need to play these pathetic games.

But then I'm not as clever as you or Twig, so I'm sure you'll come back some some witty retort (accompanied by rolly eyes)...

Contrived case or not, what it does is set a clear message that businesses have to be non discrimatory in their practices. There are LGBT people experiencing discrimination every day. This will help them. At the very least businesses that still don't want to serve them will have to be more careful and or take the hit on not doing business which includes the area they object to. Ie make no political cakes.

The slippery slope argument is frequently rolled out against Lgbt rights and it holds no water.

As for woman only gyms and golf clubs. Why shouldn't someone test the law in those areas. There are exceptions in eq law relating to proportional means to achieve legitimate aims. But there is nothing to say they can't be tested in court.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eric Mc said:

I'd prefer to be considered stupid than rude.

Your preference is granted. I don't think you're rude.