Christian Bakery vs Queerspace
Discussion
Talksteer said:
And here's how the religiously observant muslim baker would respond.
My religion teaches me that all religious symbols are idolatry, I refuse to bake cakes with crosses, stars of david, images of buddha, jesus or mohammed on them. As such I do not discriminate on the basis of religion, would you like me to bake any other cakes that don't have pictures of mohammed on them?
The bakers could have turned down the gay marriage business if they turned down making any cakes with all political messages on them.
Fair enough my good man... in that case I'd like an Angry Birds style themed cake featuring the villainous pigs, but make them pink, not green, so you're not infringing copyrightMy religion teaches me that all religious symbols are idolatry, I refuse to bake cakes with crosses, stars of david, images of buddha, jesus or mohammed on them. As such I do not discriminate on the basis of religion, would you like me to bake any other cakes that don't have pictures of mohammed on them?
The bakers could have turned down the gay marriage business if they turned down making any cakes with all political messages on them.
Eric Mc said:
Efbe said:
serious? or troll?
The truth.In other words, the original incident that sparked the campaign against segregation on buses did not start off as a protest against the system. It was a genuine case of a lady who felt she couldn't make it to the back of the bus because of the baggage she was carrying.
Now, what followed, of course, was a concerted campaign that grew into the massive civil rights movement to get legislation repealed - and it largely succeeded.
This particular incident is vexatious. It is NOT being set upon to have legislation changed. The legislation has ALREADY been changed.
So, what is the point?
Why are they doing this?
Is it an effort at self publicity, perchance?
Talksteer said:
This is debatable, Rosa Parks was active for the 12 year previously in the civil rights movement, she knew perfectly well what she was doing.
I don't think there's all that much debate to be honest.It was a studied political move. It was clever, well thought out, and impressively simple. Who could argue? Or rather, where was the logic? The only interpretation of the law was that it was repressive on racial grounds.
Like any political move it has been distorted over time, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Parks' move was brave. Good on her. It was still subject of discussing when I was in college, some ten years later. Luther King and Parks were seen - by our class at least - more or less as equal in the civil rights movement.
I don't know why it was felt, by some commentators, to suggest that Parks just got fed up with the segregation one day as she got on the bus.
I see Rosa's action as a rage against the machine. A case of 'I've had enough, it's time somebody did something'. Incredibly brave, all the more so for her being a woman. It was, however, with the best of intentions, a political and deliberate move against the status quo of repression.
I also reckon the approach by the claimants in the current case was just as politically motivated. My first post on this thread mentions agent provocateur and this case leaves no doubt that it was a part of the publicity campaign to 'raise awareness'. To deliberately attack what might be considered a soft target for such a petty outcome does the underlying cause no good whatsoever. The case is now to be reviewed, justly so, and one hopes it will now get some clear thought. The supporters of the claimants here, if they have a conscience and are not blinded with hate, should reflect on their methods if they want to progress their cause. To provoke a cause celebre after the law has been enacted is surely vexatious and unnecessary.
I also reckon the approach by the claimants in the current case was just as politically motivated. My first post on this thread mentions agent provocateur and this case leaves no doubt that it was a part of the publicity campaign to 'raise awareness'. To deliberately attack what might be considered a soft target for such a petty outcome does the underlying cause no good whatsoever. The case is now to be reviewed, justly so, and one hopes it will now get some clear thought. The supporters of the claimants here, if they have a conscience and are not blinded with hate, should reflect on their methods if they want to progress their cause. To provoke a cause celebre after the law has been enacted is surely vexatious and unnecessary.
Edited by Thorodin on Tuesday 26th May 11:39
Printers just over the border up for the same - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31753375
WinstonWolf said:
Good money after bad. Personally i support them but they haven't got a hope in hell of winning, just more money to the solicitors.
ooo000ooo said:
Printers just over the border up for the same - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31753375
"described as "the dark arts".
Harry Potter books?Grumfutock said:
WinstonWolf said:
Good money after bad. Personally i support them but they haven't got a hope in hell of winning, just more money to the solicitors.TwigtheWonderkid said:
I see the Pope has called the Irish gay marriage referendum result a "defeat for humanity." As opposed to wholesale child rape I suppose, which was a runaway success!
Not the Pope himself, but Cardinal Pietro Parolin who was speaking in an official capacity. So, yes, it is a statement by the RC Church but not said by the Pope himself. I have to say that as Popes go, this one actually seems to have his head screwed on pretty well and I'm surprised that he allowed that statement to be made.
Corpulent Tosser said:
Grumfutock said:
WinstonWolf said:
Good money after bad. Personally i support them but they haven't got a hope in hell of winning, just more money to the solicitors.Corpulent Tosser said:
Grumfutock said:
WinstonWolf said:
Good money after bad. Personally i support them but they haven't got a hope in hell of winning, just more money to the solicitors.djstevec said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
Grumfutock said:
WinstonWolf said:
Good money after bad. Personally i support them but they haven't got a hope in hell of winning, just more money to the solicitors.My take on the case is a bit different, I know their reasons for not making the cake are religious, but my take on it is why should a business not have the right to decide what they will and will not make ?
It was the product they objected to, not the person, they would have made the same person a different cake, just not the cake he wanted so if there was discrimination it was against a cake, is that illegal ?
It was the product they objected to, not the person, they would have made the same person a different cake, just not the cake he wanted so if there was discrimination it was against a cake, is that illegal ?
Corpulent Tosser said:
My take on the case is a bit different, I know their reasons for not making the cake are religious, but my take on it is why should a business not have the right to decide what they will and will not make ?
It was the product they objected to, not the person, they would have made the same person a different cake, just not the cake he wanted so if there was discrimination it was against a cake, is that illegal ?
We are patently in the minority but I'm fully with you on this one. It was the product they objected to, not the person, they would have made the same person a different cake, just not the cake he wanted so if there was discrimination it was against a cake, is that illegal ?
JonRB said:
Not the Pope himself, but Cardinal Pietro Parolin who was speaking in an official capacity. So, yes, it is a statement by the RC Church but not said by the Pope himself.
I have to say that as Popes go, this one actually seems to have his head screwed on pretty well and I'm surprised that he allowed that statement to be made.
The Curia controls the RC church. The Pope is there to write missives and attempt to steer things. I have to say that as Popes go, this one actually seems to have his head screwed on pretty well and I'm surprised that he allowed that statement to be made.
Push too hard and you'll end up like JP, 1st of his name...
jonby said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
My take on the case is a bit different, I know their reasons for not making the cake are religious, but my take on it is why should a business not have the right to decide what they will and will not make ?
It was the product they objected to, not the person, they would have made the same person a different cake, just not the cake he wanted so if there was discrimination it was against a cake, is that illegal ?
We are patently in the minority but I'm fully with you on this one. It was the product they objected to, not the person, they would have made the same person a different cake, just not the cake he wanted so if there was discrimination it was against a cake, is that illegal ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff