Christian Bakery vs Queerspace

[Grumfutock]

Bill said:

Grumfutock said:

This whole topic reminded me of another conversation on here a while back. Smoking.

Now surely if this is discriminating against gays then refusing to employ somebody because they smoke is the same? And yet the law say's otherwise. Screwed up world.

You know being gay isn't something you do by choice?

What the hell has CHOICE got to do with it? Religion is a choice and the same rules apply.

[Phil1]

otolith said:

I return to the "no blacks, dogs or Irish" point - you would be happy seeing those up in hotels again, so long as there were others that didn't?

Worse than that Eric Mc wants trading standards banned, what with their vexatious testing of compliance with the law. At least that seems to be what he's saying.

[Corpulent Tosser]

otolith said:

I return to the "no blacks, dogs or Irish" point - you would be happy seeing those up in hotels again, so long as there were others that didn't?

Did this shop have a sign saying "No Gays" ?

Did this shop refuse to serve someone because they were homosexual ?

I think the answer in both cases is no, isn't it ?

[Eric Mc]

Not at all.

I am all for creating a hue and cry over important principles. But being denied a gay themed cake does not really stand as being one of those crucial issues for humanity.

What is someone asked me to bake a cake showing some symbol I found distateful - like a Nazi themed cake, and I refused?

There is no law in the UK against baking a cake with a Nazi Swastika on it, so the person I refused to provide the cake could legitimately claim I was discriminating against them.

[Eric Mc]

Phil1 said:

Worse than that Eric Mc wants trading standards banned, what with their vexatious testing of compliance with the law. At least that seems to be what he's saying.

The law is for the obeyance of fools and the guidance of wise men.

[Timsta]

I think the fact that they passed the request onto head office is quite telling. Unless of course they pass all requests for cake designs to their head office.

[Phil1]

Eric Mc said:

Not at all.

I am all for creating a hue and cry over important principles. But being denied a gay themed cake does not really stand as being one of those crucial issues for humanity.

What is someone asked me to bake a cake showing some symbol I found distateful - like a Nazi themed cake, and I refused?

There is no law in the UK against baking a cake with a Nazi Swastika on it, so the person I refused to provide the cake could legitimately claim I was discriminating against them.

You've clarified your viewpoint perfectly. You don't think bigotry towards gays is important, and you are personally comfortable with that bigotry happening.

[Bill]

Grumfutock said:

Bill said:

Grumfutock said:

This whole topic reminded me of another conversation on here a while back. Smoking.

Now surely if this is discriminating against gays then refusing to employ somebody because they smoke is the same? And yet the law say's otherwise. Screwed up world.

You know being gay isn't something you do by choice?

What the hell has CHOICE got to do with it? Religion is a choice and the same rules apply.

[Eric Mc]

Absolutely not my view at all.

What I am against is silly, pointless point scoring by pressure groups that have no effect on anything.

[Timsta]

Eric Mc said:

This whole episode smacks of a preconceived "confrontational episode".

There is a principle in English Law which is supposed to block people who instigate legal cases just to provoke a confrontation. These people are referred to as "vexatious litigants".

What is the point of this case?

Who will benefit from this case going to court?

Will gay people benefit from any outcome from this case - i.e. will they suddenly find a whole world of new cake shops that had previously been denied to them suddenly becoming available?

There is a toy shop in Fleet that never opens on a Sunday for religious reasons (they say so on a notice on the door). If I was an atheist, should I sue them for not letting me shop on a Sunday because they are discriminating against me?

The same can be said of racists...

It you're black you can't eat in my establishment. You can eat elsewhere. Who does it benefit taking me to court? 'Those damn blacks' know not to come in my restaurant, and the only reason they came in was to cause issues.

I see no difference.

[gpo746]

Phil1 said:

Eric Mc said:

Not at all.

I am all for creating a hue and cry over important principles. But being denied a gay themed cake does not really stand as being one of those crucial issues for humanity.

What is someone asked me to bake a cake showing some symbol I found distateful - like a Nazi themed cake, and I refused?

There is no law in the UK against baking a cake with a Nazi Swastika on it, so the person I refused to provide the cake could legitimately claim I was discriminating against them.

You've clarified your viewpoint perfectly. You don't think bigotry towards gays is important, and you are personally comfortable with that bigotry happening.

Now hold on a mo chuck
I don't think Eric Mc has clarified he is bigoted against gays in ant way shape or form
The man can post stuff that can appear to be a bit "clever" as if he is looking for a row. I sometimes raise my eyebrows at his stuff his lecture to someone about the dogs name in Dambusters and why it isn't relevant to the film is a master class of long winded waffle.
However I don't think that's remotely the case here. I think he is simply stating something that a lot of people will be thinking that: the people who wanted the cake have looked for confrontation.

Incidentally so far the only bigotry I can see is your bigotry towards Eric Mc posting his view.

[Eric Mc]

Thank you

[ATG]

Eric Mc said:

What if the cake shop recommended another cake shop that was willing to bake the cake?

Would these guys still want to make a song and dance about it?

My hunch is they would. They aren't interested in the cake. They are interested in making a point.

But is there anything wrong with that? Why should they not confront bigotry?

Posted without reading the whole thread (doh!) but point stands. The triviality of cakes isn't the issue.

Edited by ATG on Tuesday 8th July 13:33

[Phil1]

gpo746 said:

Now hold on a mo chuck
I don't think Eric Mc has clarified he is bigoted against gays in ant way shape or form
The man can post stuff that can appear to be a bit "clever" as if he is looking for a row. I sometimes raise my eyebrows at his stuff his lecture to someone about the dogs name in Dambusters and why it isn't relevant to the film is a master class of long winded waffle.
However I don't think that's remotely the case here. I think he is simply stating something that a lot of people will be thinking that: the people who wanted the cake have looked for confrontation.

Incidentally so far the only bigotry I can see is your bigotry towards Eric Mc posting his view.

So what? How is it any different to trading standards looking for confrontation? Please explain?

Eric Mc has clearly posted that this isn't an important issue. The issue is gay bigotry.

[Eric Mc]

ATG said:

But is there anything wrong with that? Why should they not confront bigotry?

Confrontation is important when the result is worth the effort.

I can't honestly see what major result will be obtained from this particular incident.

[Some Gump]

A bunch of bellends making a point by creating an issue with another bunch of bellends.

I have no real opinion on what people do in the bedroom. Likewise, I have no real opinion on how you choose to run your life belief wise - both are your business and I'll let you get on with it.

However, I know I'd not go to a Jewish butcher and demand port. This is because I'm not an ahole trying to make a flap about something for no reason.

IMO, nearly all activists should be filed in a skip marked "wker" alongside any cyclist that wears a helmet cam in the hope of starting some sort of slanging match on youtube. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that if you go looking for an arguement, you'll find one.

[otolith]

Corpulent Tosser said:

otolith said:

I return to the "no blacks, dogs or Irish" point - you would be happy seeing those up in hotels again, so long as there were others that didn't?

Did this shop have a sign saying "No Gays" ?

Did this shop refuse to serve someone because they were homosexual ?

I think the answer in both cases is no, isn't it ?

I suppose it is possible that they object to Eric and Ernie cakes under all circumstances and merely found the logo aesthetically displeasing. I think it unlikely, what do you think?

[Corpulent Tosser]

The issue is some icing on a cake.

The shop didn't refuse to serve a gay person, it refused to put a certain image on the cake.

Completely out of proportion !

[Eric Mc]

Some Gump said:

However, I know I'd not go to a Jewish butcher and demand port.

And neither would I.

[Corpulent Tosser]

otolith said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

otolith said:

I return to the "no blacks, dogs or Irish" point - you would be happy seeing those up in hotels again, so long as there were others that didn't?

Did this shop have a sign saying "No Gays" ?

Did this shop refuse to serve someone because they were homosexual ?

I think the answer in both cases is no, isn't it ?

I suppose it is possible that they object to Eric and Ernie cakes under all circumstances and merely found the logo aesthetically displeasing. I think it unlikely, what do you think?

I think they should be free to sell what they want to sell and not sell what they don't want to sell.