Christian Bakery vs Queerspace

[TwigtheWonderkid]

irocfan said:

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/...

I think he's got it wrong. I hope the appeal fails.

[RobinOakapple]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

irocfan said:

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/...

I think he's got it wrong. I hope the appeal fails.

I think he's right, and I hope that the appeal is upheld.

[George111]

RobinOakapple said:

I think he's right, and I hope that the appeal is upheld.

I do too. It's one thing to not want to serve a gay customer with a standard product (clearly wrong) but quite another to not want to create something used in a political campaign . . . which should never be forced on anybody, individual or business.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

George111 said:

RobinOakapple said:

I think he's right, and I hope that the appeal is upheld.

I do too. It's one thing to not want to serve a gay customer with a standard product (clearly wrong) but quite another to not want to create something used in a political campaign . . . which should never be forced on anybody, individual or business.

I would agree with that providing the bakery refuses to create anything to do with political campaigns. That could be their general stance. "We don't decorate cakes with political stuff." But that isn't the case here. They've produced cakes in the past for all kinds of things, that they, as individuals, favour.

There's so much pendency over this case that people seem to ignore the crux of the issue.
The individuals who run the business are bible thumping protestant homophobes. That's fine. That's their choice. Carry on bible thumping. I don't care.

They then bring their own prejudices into their business and their dealings with the public. That's not on.

[George111]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

George111 said:

RobinOakapple said:

I think he's right, and I hope that the appeal is upheld.

I do too. It's one thing to not want to serve a gay customer with a standard product (clearly wrong) but quite another to not want to create something used in a political campaign . . . which should never be forced on anybody, individual or business.

I would agree with that providing the bakery refuses to create anything to do with political campaigns. That could be their general stance. "We don't decorate cakes with political stuff." But that isn't the case here. They've produced cakes in the past for all kinds of things, that they, as individuals, favour.

There's so much pendency over this case that people seem to ignore the crux of the issue.
The individuals who run the business are bible thumping protestant homophobes. That's fine. That's their choice. Carry on bible thumping. I don't care.

They then bring their own prejudices into their business and their dealings with the public. That's not on.

You're wrong but I'm not going to argue with you about it. If even P Tatchell, master of LGBT campaigns and Grand Ego of the gay world says the decision was wrong and the bakers were right, then who the f**k are you to argue

You're also wrong to say "The individuals who run the business are bible thumping protestant homophobes" - that shows YOUR prejudice not theirs. Have you had coffee with them, do you know them, do you have any facts to base your OPINION on ? No, of course not.

[RobinOakapple]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

George111 said:

RobinOakapple said:

I think he's right, and I hope that the appeal is upheld.

I do too. It's one thing to not want to serve a gay customer with a standard product (clearly wrong) but quite another to not want to create something used in a political campaign . . . which should never be forced on anybody, individual or business.

I would agree with that providing the bakery refuses to create anything to do with political campaigns. That could be their general stance. "We don't decorate cakes with political stuff." But that isn't the case here. They've produced cakes in the past for all kinds of things, that they, as individuals, favour.

There's so much pendency over this case that people seem to ignore the crux of the issue.
The individuals who run the business are bible thumping protestant homophobes. That's fine. That's their choice. Carry on bible thumping. I don't care.

They then bring their own prejudices into their business and their dealings with the public. That's not on.

I disagree with your characterisation of the situation and your conclusion.

[TTwiggy]

One day I'm going to sit down and try to get to grips with the PH 'hate league'. I was pretty sure that religionists of all flavours were universally despised on here but it seems they may actually get more support than 'the gays'. Obviously it's going to take something massive to shift 'Muslims' off the top spot, but you never know...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

George111 said:

You're also wrong to say "The individuals who run the business are bible thumping protestant homophobes" - that shows YOUR prejudice not theirs. Have you had coffee with them, do you know them, do you have any facts to base your OPINION on ? No, of course not.

Call it a wild stab in the dark.

[RobinOakapple]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

George111 said:

You're also wrong to say "The individuals who run the business are bible thumping protestant homophobes" - that shows YOUR prejudice not theirs. Have you had coffee with them, do you know them, do you have any facts to base your OPINION on ? No, of course not.

Call it a wild stab in the dark.

Call it an inaccurate wild stab in the dark. And one which, as is often the case, says more about you than it does them (probably).

[Thorodin]

Apparently it is now Tatchell's opinion that, in his own words - in context: "In my view it is an infringement of freedom to require businesses to aid the promotion of ideas to which they conscientiously object. Discrimination against people should be unlawful, but not against ideas". Big of him. So all objectors need to do is have a conscience and form a dormant business. A shame he didn't agree with that 'view' at the onset of all the kerfuffle about homosexual 'rights'. He might have been instrumental in helping to create a more settled outcome than the pig's breakfast we have at present.

And, to mention a minor consideration, why is he so discriminatory about people not having the same 'rights' as businesses? What's so special about businesses? Aren't they people too?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

RobinOakapple said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

George111 said:

You're also wrong to say "The individuals who run the business are bible thumping protestant homophobes" - that shows YOUR prejudice not theirs. Have you had coffee with them, do you know them, do you have any facts to base your OPINION on ? No, of course not.

Call it a wild stab in the dark.

Call it an inaccurate wild stab in the dark. And one which, as is often the case, says more about you than it does them (probably).

I'd be very surprised if my estimation of the business owners' attitudes is inaccurate at all.

[Sticks.]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'd be very surprised if my prejudice about the business owners' attitudes is inaccurate at all.

Fixed that for you. In case the irony wasn't clear enough.

[iphonedyou]

TTwiggy said:

One day I'm going to sit down and try to get to grips with the PH 'hate league'. I was pretty sure that religionists of all flavours were universally despised on here but it seems they may actually get more support than 'the gays'. Obviously it's going to take something massive to shift 'Muslims' off the top spot, but you never know...

I can see why you're generally on the opposite side of majority opinion, here. You - deliberately or ignorantly, and I fear the latter - utterly misconstrue what's been said, then argue against that.

Which is, on the face of it, a lot of effort for zero reward.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Sticks. said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'd be very surprised if my prejudice about the business owners' attitudes is inaccurate at all.

Fixed that for you. In case the irony wasn't clear enough.

There is no irony. I don't like them. I am prejudiced. There's no law against that. I can think what I like. The point is, if they walked into my cake shop and asked for a cake with a pro proddy bible thumping message, I'd gladly make it for them.

[Jinx]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

There is no irony. I don't like them. I am prejudiced. There's no law against that. I can think what I like. The point is, if they walked into my cake shop and asked for a cake with a pro proddy bible thumping message, I'd gladly make it for them.

Even if it was a quote from Leviticus?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Jinx said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

There is no irony. I don't like them. I am prejudiced. There's no law against that. I can think what I like. The point is, if they walked into my cake shop and asked for a cake with a pro proddy bible thumping message, I'd gladly make it for them.

Even if it was a quote from Leviticus?

If the quote from Leviticus was homophobic, sexist, or similar, and thus illegal, then no. But if the slogan was "Live Life Like Leviticus", then absolutely.

[The Wookie]

Thorodin said:

Apparently it is now Tatchell's opinion that, in his own words - in context: "In my view it is an infringement of freedom to require businesses to aid the promotion of ideas to which they conscientiously object. Discrimination against people should be unlawful, but not against ideas". Big of him. So all objectors need to do is have a conscience and form a dormant business. A shame he didn't agree with that 'view' at the onset of all the kerfuffle about homosexual 'rights'. He might have been instrumental in helping to create a more settled outcome than the pig's breakfast we have at present.

And, to mention a minor consideration, why is he so discriminatory about people not having the same 'rights' as businesses? What's so special about businesses? Aren't they people too?

The way I read it the (IMHO not unreasonable) point is that if you completely refuse to serve someone on the basis that you don't like their particular brand of humanity then you're at the mercy of the law, but you do have the right to turn down a particular piece of business because you don't want to be party to the product.

For instance if a straight person went in and ordered the same cake for themselves but they said no then would there still be a justifiable argument or legal case?

In the same way if a gay couple went in and ordered a perfectly ordinary cake for their nephew's birthday but were refused then the bakers would rightly be in deep st

[irocfan]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Jinx said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

There is no irony. I don't like them. I am prejudiced. There's no law against that. I can think what I like. The point is, if they walked into my cake shop and asked for a cake with a pro proddy bible thumping message, I'd gladly make it for them.

Even if it was a quote from Leviticus?

If the quote from Leviticus was homophobic, sexist, or similar, and thus illegal, then no. But if the slogan was "Live Life Like Leviticus", then absolutely.

what about "down with gay marriage"? It isn't homophobic....

[RobinOakapple]

Homophobia. What an excellent word, designed to put those who have negative attitude towards homosexual people onto the back foot.

"A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation the affected person will go to great lengths to avoid, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed"

What is it about disapproving of openly homosexual behaviour that means that the person concerned is frightened?

[rxtx]

What's the openly homosexual behaviour you're referring to? We all know what homophobia means, no need to get pedantic about it.