Christian Bakery vs Queerspace

[Eric Mc]

Not disputing that, but would Mr Lee have bothered taking the case to court?

Or was the whole point of teh transaction purely to launch a case?

[JonRB]

Eric Mc said:

I think if they had said "no" up front, there would have been no case.

It seems to me the fact that they initially agreed to bake the cake and then changed their mind is what set the case in motion and undermined their defence.

Well, obviously.

They took the order, which was within their Terms and Conditions of "we'll print anything you want on your cake", and then when the customer came back with their design they looked at it and went "ewwww, gays" and terminated the order. And, worse, they naively said exactly why they were doing so and for what reasons, those reasons being illegal.

You can make up whatever bizarre scenarios and examples you wish to try to argue otherwise, but those are the facts of the matter.

[Mrr T]

vetrof said:

Eric Mc said:

I think it's called sticking to your principles. I actually admire that in people - even if I might not agree with those principles on occasion.

I find it very difficult to admire bigots, whether standing up for their principals or not.

The right to be a bigot is an essential part of free speech.

[Mr_B]

Eric Mc said:

Mr_B said:

How hard was it to turn down their business by simply quoting a silly price or a 5 week wait for the cake ? People like this that have to make a legal case and stupid point are idiots. Again, if you are incapable of dealing with the public, don't open a shop.

I think it's called sticking to your principles. I actually admire that in people - even if I might not agree with those principles on occasion.

It's called being an idiot and making something out of nothing. There was a simple way to turn down their business without any fuss or looking the bigoted idiot and putting your business on the line. Making something out of it and refusing gave him chance I would say to vent his prejudices to whoever asked for that cake.
Maybe his principles as a decent person would have been better served had he put them off shopping with him and avoiding confrontation, rather than having to confront people with his prejudices in his life as a shop keeper dealing with the public. Can't handle the public ? Don't put yourself out there then.

[vetrof]

Mrr T said:

The right to be a bigot is an essential part of free speech.

Doesn't mean I have to admire them.

[Eric Mc]

In your opinion.

Which is fine - as you are entitled to that view.

Others are entitled to views that you or I may not agree with.

[Eric Mc]

vetrof said:

Doesn't mean I have to admire them.

Nobody is making it compulsory. That's what I like about freedom. It's the "free" bit I like.

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

Not disputing that, but would Mr Lee have bothered taking the case to court?

Or was the whole point of teh transaction purely to launch a case?

You have already made your mind up Eric.

[vetrof]

Ecactly, and were I running a business they would be free to use it.

[Eric Mc]

vetrof said:

Ecactly, and were I running a business they would be free to use it.

Or not, as the case may be - given that they have plenty of alternatives to chose from. "Choice" is another benefit of living in a "free" society - as Milton Friedman used to say.

[Thorodin]

There are obviously some legally trained or experienced people on here, although the opinions vary considerably. As you might expect, and even eventually come to regret, if ever your need to employ them befalls you. It occurs to me that some of the language used in these exchanges is somewhat illuminating. Expressions such as 'bible thumping Ulster prods' may or may not be within the law, but boy does it speak volumes about the mind-set. And 'maybe they just don't like gays' is used in ignorance unless you know the couple personally. Maybe they just don't like homosexuality. Or is it now compulsory, because I think we need to know. For obvious reasons. As I said earlier, don't they just love to put vexatious arguments!

[MX51ROD]

I have not read all this thread , but I am of the opinion these bakers and the B&B owners from a while age were targeted by professional offended homosexuals I wonder if the would dare to try to book in to the Kadimah Hotel in Stamford Hill , or order a cake from Grodzinski Bakers also in Stamford Hill and when turned away tried to take them on in court , no of course they would not, what about a baker in Turnpike Lane , or Brick Lane ,strong Muslim areas , no chance , not easy targets , they have set their cause back years .

[JonRB]

MX51ROD said:

I have not read all this thread , but I am of the opinion these bakers and the B&B owners from a while age were targeted by professional offended homosexuals I wonder if the would dare to try to book in to the Kadimah Hotel in Stamford Hill , or order a cake from Grodzinski Bakers also in Stamford Hill and when turned away tried to take them on in court , no of course they would not, what about a baker in Turnpike Lane , or Brick Lane ,strong Muslim areas , no chance , not easy targets , they have set their cause back years .

As you say, you have not read all this thread.

[irocfan]

JonRB said:

MX51ROD said:

I have not read all this thread , but I am of the opinion these bakers and the B&B owners from a while age were targeted by professional offended homosexuals I wonder if the would dare to try to book in to the Kadimah Hotel in Stamford Hill , or order a cake from Grodzinski Bakers also in Stamford Hill and when turned away tried to take them on in court , no of course they would not, what about a baker in Turnpike Lane , or Brick Lane ,strong Muslim areas , no chance , not easy targets , they have set their cause back years .

As you say, you have not read all this thread.

he does make a fair point though

[JonRB]

irocfan said:

he does make a fair point though

One that has been made several times on the thread, and debated, and addressed. So, really, doesn't bring anything new to the discussion. Hence my comment.

[Efbe]

djstevec said:

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.

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.

So Jesus talked a load of crap.....interesting.

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....

"No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man [Jesus Christ]” (John 3:13).

it's just a load of contradictory stories

[MX51ROD]

JonRB said:

One that has been made several times on the thread, and debated, and addressed. So, really, doesn't bring anything new to the discussion. Hence my comment.

And because it has been said before , negates me from adding my opinion ?

[deeen]

Mrr T said:

The right to be a bigot is an essential part of free speech.

Where did this "right" come from, who was it assigned by, and what responsibilities go along with this "right"?

I think the reality is the opposite of your statement - it's not illegal to be a bigot, but it is illegal to speak freely about your bigoted views, or act on them, in certain cases.

[JonRB]

MX51ROD said:

And because it has been said before , negates me from adding my opinion ?

Not at all. I was merely observing that it didn't say anything new or add anything to the debate especially as, by your own admission, you were too lazy to have read the thread and to have read the responses that were already there to the opinion you posted.

[irocfan]

deeen said:

Mrr T said:

The right to be a bigot is an essential part of free speech.

Where did this "right" come from, who was it assigned by, and what responsibilities go along with this "right"?

I think the reality is the opposite of your statement - it's not illegal to be a bigot, but it is illegal to speak freely about your bigoted views, or act on them, in certain cases.

actually it IS legal to speak freely about your bigoted views as long as you're not encouraging hate (Choudry would seem to be a prime example of this). Acting on your bigoted views however is something totally different