Christian Bakery vs Queerspace
Discussion
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 ?
Can't say I disagree with you but if I was the baker I would of given them a cake made from a giant doughnut with a chocolate eclair going in through the hole. If you can't beat them then take the piss!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 ?
Art0ir said:
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...
As the years have gone by, different factions have struggled for power.
This pope has said things that have not been particularly nasty, especially about gays, but when it comes to making decisions on change, he has backed away. He did once ask: Who am I to judge?
But all it was was a soundbite. The church's direction against those whose tastes are different remains the same. What's that if not a judgement?
The previous pope met with Cherry Blair despite her memoir having a whole section on what contraceptive methods she uses. OK, so no one wants more Blairs in this world, but if it's no bar for her, what about those who might be infected with AIDS?
This pope is a pope. Says it all. He doesn't do finery. Neither do I.
I'm not a fan of popes, and won't be until one of them changes stuff.
Grumfutock 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 ?
Can't say I disagree with you but if I was the baker I would of given them a cake made from a giant doughnut with a chocolate eclair going in through the hole. If you can't beat them then take the piss!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 ?
They can decide what they do and who they deal with - except if it's seen to be discrimination.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 ?
They could have come up with spurious reasons for refusing to make the cake, but instead chose a reason that they probably knew would get them into trouble.
Halb said:
Art0ir said:
The Curia controls the RC church. The Pope is there to write missives and attempt to steer things.
Push too hard and you'll end up like JP, 1st of his name...
Just when you think you are out...they pull you back in...Push too hard and you'll end up like JP, 1st of his name...
in fairness Italy during that period outdid the Godfather in every way. jonby said:
We are patently in the minority but I'm fully with you on this one.
Not necessarily. I suspect, and only suspect - I have no evidence, a majority abstain from declaring their view. Only the committed will chance the predictable storm. That doesn't mean they are for or against, just discreet. You know, how it used to be before you had to take sides and be counted. 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 ?
I had always thought the law was about protecting groups of people and in this case the person was not discriminated against.
I guess I was wrong.
JonRB said:
Ah, ok. Fair enough. I'm not really very clued-up on the inner workings of the RC Church.
I guess all I was really saying is that the current Pope appears to be somewhat less of a loon than most. That's all.
I think I know what you mean. He's part of something big though and it takes more than being well meaning to change things. The comment about the vote sort of says it all. They must know the history of marriage but choose to ignore it.I guess all I was really saying is that the current Pope appears to be somewhat less of a loon than most. That's all.
I blame the Hardwicke First Marriage) Act, around 1750 or so. Before then the church didn't matter.
My paternal grandmother had a 'common law' marriage. I'd like to see any pope, or group of them, tell her she wasn't really married. There would be deaths. Those that lived would wish they had died.
Although I'm treating it as a joke, the poor woman, despite having 18 children, and that's 18 who lived beyond a couple of months - every one of her 8 sons was a twin, but one died with each - and bringing them all up with high morals, felt 'guilty' that she wasn't married.
MTech535 said:
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 ?
I had always thought the law was about protecting groups of people and in this case the person was not discriminated against.
I guess I was wrong.
I agree with those who say they could have handled it in a much savvier way, I am actually for gay marriage and I also agree with those that say as a business, they should have simply taken the business but the basic principle of being able to pick and choose your orders in a bespoke business (rather than based on who is doing the ordering) is an important one hence my concern about this ruling
JonRB said:
I guess all I was really saying is that the current Pope appears to be somewhat less of a loon than most. That's all.
He's the head of the most corrupt and criminal organisation of the planet. And has done nothing to rectify that. Saying one pope is nicer than another is like picking your favourite Mafia boss.
WinstonWolf said:
Good luck to them. It was an idiotic ruling.Unfortunately it was a test case ruling likely to line the pockets of the scummier end of the legal profession, so they are now effectively appealing in a court against lawyers' interests.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
He's the head of the most corrupt and criminal organisation of the planet. And has done nothing to rectify that. Saying one pope is nicer than another is like picking your favourite Mafia boss.
the most corrupt and criminal? That's a mighty big call there old chapirocfan said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
He's the head of the most corrupt and criminal organisation of the planet. And has done nothing to rectify that. Saying one pope is nicer than another is like picking your favourite Mafia boss.
the most corrupt and criminal? That's a mighty big call there old chapseems like Patrick Stewart has baked the bakers now...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/04/patrick...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/04/patrick...
thread resurrection here...
Peter Tatchell has changed his mind on the row and while (understandably) not agreeing with the baker's viewpoints he does agree with their right not to print something against their beliefs....
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/...
Peter Tatchell has changed his mind on the row and while (understandably) not agreeing with the baker's viewpoints he does agree with their right not to print something against their beliefs....
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff