Christian Bakery vs Queerspace
Discussion
iphonedyou said:
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.
I'm frequently on the opposite side because I'm not a Muslim-hating, gay-despising, misogynist who's afraid of his own shadow. I don't need a reward.Which is, on the face of it, a lot of effort for zero reward.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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. 
The Wookie said:
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 s
t
I agree with you, by and large, but can’t see any real difference between the two choices in your first para. And therefore we have the mess that lawyers have got us into. The reason for the refusal in the first case is entirely the same in essence as the reason for the refusal in the second, only the law has given a route for legal argument by proxy. Fraud, in my book. 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 s
tSecond para: Answer – no. Apparently, in this case at least, the law has been interpreted as the discrimination can only be established if the customer is homosexual. Although I do wonder if the bakers were homosexual and a hetero customer asked for a cake bearing the clarion call ‘Support hetero rights…’… I bet a case wouldn’t get very far. Only my supposition, of course.
Third para: Yes, but they didn’t! It was the tacit support of their customers’ cause that the bakers’ objected to!
Tatchell’s statement in my earlier post highlights the semantics of it. That’s what makes it asinine. Good on him by the way, takes courage to back the other side in his position!
JuniorD said:
I've been in the shop at the centre of the argument a lot, and it was plain to me that a few of the staff were LGBT do I would say the owners are not homophobes. Also, when you listen to the owners, they aren't hateful people.
The law judges actions in the main. Should it judge thoughts and character then I would condemn it.The action is not that the shop keepers are nasty, but that they did not comply with the law. If they were told by their vicar, as many of us have been, that homosexuality is wrong and still believe it, then that is their right. It does not make them nasty.
irocfan said:
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?TwigtheWonderkid said:
irocfan said:
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?irocfan said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
irocfan said:
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?Personally, I can discriminate. I don't like their world view and won't be inviting them round for dinner.
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...
This is just tribalism.It isn't about hating gays or correcting religious zealots or any hierarchy of more or less favoured groups. It's about the law forcing someone to print something they don't want to, and worse,to serve a political agenda.
Thorodin said:
Just occurred that's how hookers rationalise. Doesn't matter who or what they are or what they want, so long as they pay up and on time. And I get to preach as well. Some pages back on this the word conscience was mentioned. Oh yes, Peter Tatchell said it.
People's conscience should not override their legal obligations. AJS- said:
This is just tribalism.
It isn't about hating gays or correcting religious zealots or any hierarchy of more or less favoured groups. It's about the law forcing someone to print something they don't want to, and worse,to serve a political agenda.
So you don't think that people on here are guilty of any 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' thinking? You don't find it odd – to take one example – that a site that generally displays scant regard for women's rights suddenly comes over all Emily Pankhurst where the burka is concerned?It isn't about hating gays or correcting religious zealots or any hierarchy of more or less favoured groups. It's about the law forcing someone to print something they don't want to, and worse,to serve a political agenda.
TTwiggy said:
So you don't think that people on here are guilty of any 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' thinking? You don't find it odd – to take one example – that a site that generally displays scant regard for women's rights suddenly comes over all Emily Pankhurst where the burka is concerned?
EmmelineJinx said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
People's conscience should not override their legal obligations.
Yes it should. Morality should always trump legality or unjust laws could never be fought - homosexuality was illegal for years.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff