Christian Bakery vs Queerspace
Discussion
JonRB said:
Einion Yrth said:
If he were faced by people prejudiced against asians he wouldn't get the job, they'd just give a different reason.
And so we return to the naievety of the bakers' reason for declining the order. 
Saying that though, they had no problem touching during the preparation of, or the selling of, pork products in their bakeries to their (likely) Christian customers...so who knows which of their gods laws they decide to uphold so "religiously" and those they don't?
djstevec said:
Aren't Christians forbidden from lying though? Which they seem to have upheld by being so forthright in the reason for refusal.
Saying that though, they had no problem touching during the preparation of, or the selling of, pork products in their bakeries to their (likely) Christian customers...so who knows which of their gods laws they decide to uphold so "religiously" and those they don't?
Eh? Saying that though, they had no problem touching during the preparation of, or the selling of, pork products in their bakeries to their (likely) Christian customers...so who knows which of their gods laws they decide to uphold so "religiously" and those they don't?
It's forbidden for Jews to eat pork but not Christians.
djstevec said:
JonRB said:
Einion Yrth said:
If he were faced by people prejudiced against asians he wouldn't get the job, they'd just give a different reason.
And so we return to the naievety of the bakers' reason for declining the order. Saying that though, they had no problem touching during the preparation of, or the selling of, pork products in their bakeries to their (likely) Christian customers...so who knows which of their gods laws they decide to uphold so "religiously" and those they don't?
I was unfortunately in a hospital waiting room for a while this afternoon and even more unfortunately, the only paper in there was the Daily Mail. In their article on this matter, the bakery state they have at least one gay employee and numerous gay customers. This has nothing to do with prejudice against gay people and everything to do with their right to pick and choose what campaigns they are happy for their business to provide bespoke services to support
They didn't have to lie because IMO, they did nothing wrong or even illegal. This is not down to the law, it's down to interpretation of the law. We all (I think) accept that discrimination should rightly be illegal, which it is. The question is whether this bakery acted in a discriminatory manner. IMO the sexuality of the customer was irrelevant to the bakery, so they should not have been deemed guilty.
JonRB said:
Thorodin said:
If I may say, that's ridiculous! It's also, I suspect, an argument for it's own sake!
No matter what you or the 'law' says, equality seldom means equal.
There is and always should be the option of personal responsibility to obey one's conscience. You appear to be saying in your last sentence all that matters to you is the commercial aspect that your customers present to your business and that you will do business with anyone that can pay. To hell with anything to do with personal freedom or ethics. That may be acceptable to you, but those personal freedoms are generally sincerely felt and are being trodden down by dogma-led minorities - much the same as the historic refusal to investigate sex abuse rings. Freedom is freedom to follow your conscience. The settled law in all this, as in so many cases, acts against that and is another example of 'hurt feelings' being paramount. Pretty soon this road diverges into 'I don't like this fellow, I think I'll cross over the road' and yet more opportunities for legal wrangling from which the only beneficiaries are the legal profession.
And yet most people can agree that sexism, racism, homophobia and transphobia are all things that are undesirable in business, especially the workplace. The fact that we even need legislation to enforce equality and prevent discrimination is a sad reflection on society, but that's how it is. No matter what you or the 'law' says, equality seldom means equal.
There is and always should be the option of personal responsibility to obey one's conscience. You appear to be saying in your last sentence all that matters to you is the commercial aspect that your customers present to your business and that you will do business with anyone that can pay. To hell with anything to do with personal freedom or ethics. That may be acceptable to you, but those personal freedoms are generally sincerely felt and are being trodden down by dogma-led minorities - much the same as the historic refusal to investigate sex abuse rings. Freedom is freedom to follow your conscience. The settled law in all this, as in so many cases, acts against that and is another example of 'hurt feelings' being paramount. Pretty soon this road diverges into 'I don't like this fellow, I think I'll cross over the road' and yet more opportunities for legal wrangling from which the only beneficiaries are the legal profession.
If people have the kind of freedom you're suggesting then we'll be back to B&B's with a sign in the window saying "No dogs, Blacks or Irish".
A balance needs to be struck, of course. But in the case of the bakery they could have have saved themselves a whole world of shiat if they had simply said "we don't do political slogans".
The 'No dogs...' argument is hackneyed to the point of threadbare now (or might that word be offensive to Londoners in this context?) and no longer applicable - nobody would dream of doing that these days and I don't believe that's a function of the law being changed.
Of course a balance needs to be struck. Unfortunately the law makers continually frame bad law, poorly drafted law and unnecessary law - mostly in the interests of lawyers. They have then the nerve to call themselves 'learned', what a euphemism! It should not be beyond the wit of man to construct law that is definite and with a view to the rather obvious loopholes that provide future generations of advocates with excuses to waffle and present vexatious argument. Naturally, I assume that the gaping holes are accidental and unintended!
Edited by Thorodin on Wednesday 20th May 15:36
Thorodin said:
The 'No dogs...' argument is hackneyed to the point of threadbare now (or might that word be offensive to Londoners in this context?) and no longer applicable - nobody would dream of doing that these days and I don't believe that's a function of the law being changed.
But people did do it, with impunity, until it was challenged in the courts, and the courts said that it was illegal. That we have moved on to a more enlightened time, where nobody would consider doing this, is obviously a good thing, but there was a time when people needed to be told that it wasn't right.Einion Yrth said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
This has always been my problem with anti-discrimination legislation; the prejudice doesn't go away it merely becomes better hidden.I doubt the experience of a heavy handed legal system wielding a mallet, or possibly a rolling pin, would have made them think again, other than to take advice offered on here to lie about their motives. That's constructive! It will probably entrench their views and reflect on their overall attitudes in an even more negative way.
The word bigot is generally taken to mean a refusal to accept the views of others that are vigorously and forcefully held and to refuse to listen to the contrary views of others. Oh, except of course when the state decrees it, having formulated that 'bigotry' in a closed chamber following heavy lobbying by minorities.
The word bigot is generally taken to mean a refusal to accept the views of others that are vigorously and forcefully held and to refuse to listen to the contrary views of others. Oh, except of course when the state decrees it, having formulated that 'bigotry' in a closed chamber following heavy lobbying by minorities.
jonby said:
djstevec said:
JonRB said:
Einion Yrth said:
If he were faced by people prejudiced against asians he wouldn't get the job, they'd just give a different reason.
And so we return to the naievety of the bakers' reason for declining the order. Saying that though, they had no problem touching during the preparation of, or the selling of, pork products in their bakeries to their (likely) Christian customers...so who knows which of their gods laws they decide to uphold so "religiously" and those they don't?
I was unfortunately in a hospital waiting room for a while this afternoon and even more unfortunately, the only paper in there was the Daily Mail. In their article on this matter, the bakery state they have at least one gay employee and numerous gay customers. This has nothing to do with prejudice against gay people and everything to do with their right to pick and choose what campaigns they are happy for their business to provide bespoke services to support
They didn't have to lie because IMO, they did nothing wrong or even illegal. This is not down to the law, it's down to interpretation of the law. We all (I think) accept that discrimination should rightly be illegal, which it is. The question is whether this bakery acted in a discriminatory manner. IMO the sexuality of the customer was irrelevant to the bakery, so they should not have been deemed guilty.
‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35)
‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18).
'It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)
etc....
Jesus also seems to re-affirm Old Testament events such as the destruction of Sodom, death of Lot's wife and Cains murder by Abel. So to dismiss the Old Testament for Christians is far from being that simple.
Thorodin said:
I doubt the experience of a heavy handed legal system wielding a mallet, or possibly a rolling pin, would have made them think again, other than to take advice offered on here to lie about their motives. That's constructive! It will probably entrench their views and reflect on their overall attitudes in an even more negative way.
The word bigot is generally taken to mean a refusal to accept the views of others that are vigorously and forcefully held and to refuse to listen to the contrary views of others. Oh, except of course when the state decrees it, having formulated that 'bigotry' in a closed chamber following heavy lobbying by minorities.
Some things are just 'wrong' and we have laws that ensure these 'wrong' things are not done. We understand that discrimination based on skin colour or sexual preference is also 'wrong' and we have laws that ensure this doesn't happen. I fail to see a problem with this.The word bigot is generally taken to mean a refusal to accept the views of others that are vigorously and forcefully held and to refuse to listen to the contrary views of others. Oh, except of course when the state decrees it, having formulated that 'bigotry' in a closed chamber following heavy lobbying by minorities.
djstevec said:
Jesus re-affirms the applicability of the Old Testament numerous times according to pretty much every Christian/bible study website I've read.
‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35)
‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18).
'It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)
etc....
Jesus also seems to re-affirm Old Testament events such as the destruction of Sodom, death of Lot's wife and Cains murder by Abel. So to dismiss the Old Testament for Christians is far from being that simple.
load of cr4p really. Also that's the Old testament.‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35)
‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18).
'It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)
etc....
Jesus also seems to re-affirm Old Testament events such as the destruction of Sodom, death of Lot's wife and Cains murder by Abel. So to dismiss the Old Testament for Christians is far from being that simple.
Many of the most important christian beliefs aren't even in the bible. Going to heaven, no sex before marriage, loads of stuff is just not there.
Efbe said:
djstevec said:
Jesus re-affirms the applicability of the Old Testament numerous times according to pretty much every Christian/bible study website I've read.
‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35)
‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18).
'It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)
etc....
Jesus also seems to re-affirm Old Testament events such as the destruction of Sodom, death of Lot's wife and Cains murder by Abel. So to dismiss the Old Testament for Christians is far from being that simple.
load of cr4p really. Also that's the Old testament.‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35)
‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18).
'It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)
etc....
Jesus also seems to re-affirm Old Testament events such as the destruction of Sodom, death of Lot's wife and Cains murder by Abel. So to dismiss the Old Testament for Christians is far from being that simple.
Many of the most important christian beliefs aren't even in the bible. Going to heaven, no sex before marriage, loads of stuff is just not there.
No "Heaven" stuff in the New Testament?
Matthew 5:19-20
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
etc....
TTwiggy said:
Thorodin said:
I doubt the experience of a heavy handed legal system wielding a mallet, or possibly a rolling pin, would have made them think again, other than to take advice offered on here to lie about their motives. That's constructive! It will probably entrench their views and reflect on their overall attitudes in an even more negative way.
The word bigot is generally taken to mean a refusal to accept the views of others that are vigorously and forcefully held and to refuse to listen to the contrary views of others. Oh, except of course when the state decrees it, having formulated that 'bigotry' in a closed chamber following heavy lobbying by minorities.
Some things are just 'wrong' and we have laws that ensure these 'wrong' things are not done. We understand that discrimination based on skin colour or sexual preference is also 'wrong' and we have laws that ensure this doesn't happen. I fail to see a problem with this.The word bigot is generally taken to mean a refusal to accept the views of others that are vigorously and forcefully held and to refuse to listen to the contrary views of others. Oh, except of course when the state decrees it, having formulated that 'bigotry' in a closed chamber following heavy lobbying by minorities.
Im also reminded of the Christian lady who worked for BA that was told to remove her cross as it was against BA's dress code for jewelry....she took them to the European Court of Human Rights and won as it was a symbol of her faith not jewelry. The court said BA had not struck a fair balance between Ms Eweida's religious beliefs and the company's wish to "project a certain corporate image".
You win some, you lose some.
You win some, you lose some.
Thorodin said:
Sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear. Some things are 'wrong' because a very select section of people, who are not exactly representative of the public, agree with (again) an unrepresentative minority that certain social attitudes need changing. Those minorities frequently see themselves as victims and are disproportionately influential in getting their demands across. The problem imo is that the law is obviously, and especially in this case, a complete ass. The problem is not law in general but the clumsy, ignorant and undemocratic way it is formulated by those who have an undeserved reputation and public estimation for the work they do, allegedly on our behalf. We are not served very well. That's the problem and it's all at our expense! That's not just a problem, it's offensive!
You prefer mob rule?Bill said:
Thorodin said:
Sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear. Some things are 'wrong' because a very select section of people, who are not exactly representative of the public, agree with (again) an unrepresentative minority that certain social attitudes need changing. Those minorities frequently see themselves as victims and are disproportionately influential in getting their demands across. The problem imo is that the law is obviously, and especially in this case, a complete ass. The problem is not law in general but the clumsy, ignorant and undemocratic way it is formulated by those who have an undeserved reputation and public estimation for the work they do, allegedly on our behalf. We are not served very well. That's the problem and it's all at our expense! That's not just a problem, it's offensive!
You prefer mob rule?Bill said:
Thorodin said:
Sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear. Some things are 'wrong' because a very select section of people, who are not exactly representative of the public, agree with (again) an unrepresentative minority that certain social attitudes need changing. Those minorities frequently see themselves as victims and are disproportionately influential in getting their demands across. The problem imo is that the law is obviously, and especially in this case, a complete ass. The problem is not law in general but the clumsy, ignorant and undemocratic way it is formulated by those who have an undeserved reputation and public estimation for the work they do, allegedly on our behalf. We are not served very well. That's the problem and it's all at our expense! That's not just a problem, it's offensive!
You prefer mob rule?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff