Christian Bakery vs Queerspace

Author
Discussion

jonby

5,357 posts

157 months

Thursday 4th February 2016
quotequote all
JagLover said:
In point of fact someone in favour of equal political and civil rights for men and women is going to be equally opposed to women being compelled to wear the Burka and female quotas.

It only appears to be an inconsistency if you work from a tribal "us vs them" approach rather than looking at each case on its own merits.
Depends surely on whether you are in favour of equal rights in respect of a specific issue because you fundamentally believe in the principle of equality for all in all areas (in which case your argument is true) or if it's because of selfish reasons that mean a specific issue affects you personally ?

There is also the problem of what 'equality' actually means on a practical level in relation to a specific issue, as opposed to the philosophical support for equality. Put slightly differently, it's not uncommon to find people agree with the principle there should be equality in a specific area, but not agree on how you go about that (e.g. all female shortlists, Rooney rule, university applicants from state schools, etc)

In fact getting back to the original topic of this thread, I'd hope most people believe in equality of rights for people regardless of their sexuality. The argument here is whether what the bakery did was to infringe those rights and if so, should one balance that with the rights of the shop & it's owners, rather than an argument that a gay man shouldn't have equal rights to any other customer

RobinOakapple

2,802 posts

112 months

Friday 5th February 2016
quotequote all
irocfan said:
now reading between the lines here - the bolded bit (added by me) would indicate that Homosexuality was illegal. I suspect that Alan Turing would have been glad to find out that his activities weren't illegal when he was prosecuted/persecuted for them....
Homosexuality is (put simply) a state of mind. It's something which exists in the brain.

No-one has ever been prosecuted or persecuted for what is in their head alone. It's illegal ACTS that people get prosecuted for.

Therefore homosexuality has never been illegal, but the things that homosexuals like to do with others sometimes have been.

JuniorD

8,624 posts

223 months

Friday 5th February 2016
quotequote all
RobinOakapple said:
No-one has ever been prosecuted or persecuted for what is in their head alone. It's illegal ACTS that people get prosecuted for.
Hasn't someone been prosecuted and jailed in the UK for having a piece of paper with a short list of MPs names (and possibly some other public information) under the guise of having someting that is useful for terrorism?

That smacks a bit of thought police to me.

RobinOakapple

2,802 posts

112 months

Friday 5th February 2016
quotequote all
JuniorD said:
RobinOakapple said:
No-one has ever been prosecuted or persecuted for what is in their head alone. It's illegal ACTS that people get prosecuted for.
Hasn't someone been prosecuted and jailed in the UK for having a piece of paper with a short list of MPs names (and possibly some other public information) under the guise of having someting that is useful for terrorism?

That smacks a bit of thought police to me.
If someone has, then I guess he's wishing he had kept the list in his head, he'd have been ok then smile



anonymous-user

54 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

158 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
So I can go into a muslim bakers & demand a piggy-cake? And if they refuse I can claim discrimination?

Why do I doubt that this would work?

Eric Mc

122,007 posts

265 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
Yes - don't be so sure that this is a victim for free speech. This has turned out to be one of the most legally complex cases we have had in recent years.

JawKnee

1,140 posts

97 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
So I can go into a muslim bakers & demand a piggy-cake? And if they refuse I can claim discrimination?

Why do I doubt that this would work?
Why would you feel discriminated? Are you a pig?

TonyToniTone

3,425 posts

249 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
So I can go into a muslim bakers & demand a piggy-cake? And if they refuse I can claim discrimination?

Why do I doubt that this would work?
Why would they refuse to make a pig cake?

anonymous-user

54 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
So I can go into a muslim bakers & demand a piggy-cake? And if they refuse I can claim discrimination?

Why do I doubt that this would work?
Just like the second post of the topic, a 'look at Muslims' reply. Although I suspect you are willing to sacrifice rational posting to be provocative.

Is a pig a protected characteristic like race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation etc?

You must see the differences.

Eric Mc

122,007 posts

265 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
This was a stunt deliberately targeted on this particular bakery.

It wasn't just an innocent customer being taken by surprise by the bakery's reaction and getting affronted.

If they were so keen on getting a particular message on a specific cake, they could have gone to another more accommodating bakery. They were not denied a choice.

But that wasn't the point. They wanted THIS bakery called out.

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

239 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
TonyToniTone said:
Rovinghawk said:
So I can go into a muslim bakers & demand a piggy-cake? And if they refuse I can claim discrimination?

Why do I doubt that this would work?
Why would they refuse to make a pig cake?
They wouldn't be able to in law now it seems.

anonymous-user

54 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
This was a stunt deliberately targeted on this particular bakery.

It wasn't just an innocent customer being taken by surprise by the bakery's reaction and getting affronted.

If they were so keen on getting a particular message on a specific cake, they could have gone to another more accommodating bakery. They were not denied a choice.

But that wasn't the point. They wanted THIS bakery called out.
Maybe so, but it's those who choose to stand up to discrimination that change things and continue to evolve society.

JawKnee

1,140 posts

97 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
This was a stunt deliberately targeted on this particular bakery.

It wasn't just an innocent customer being taken by surprise by the bakery's reaction and getting affronted.

If they were so keen on getting a particular message on a specific cake, they could have gone to another more accommodating bakery. They were not denied a choice.

But that wasn't the point. They wanted THIS bakery called out.
My heart bleeds for these bigots.

otolith

56,086 posts

204 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
This was a stunt deliberately targeted on this particular bakery.

It wasn't just an innocent customer being taken by surprise by the bakery's reaction and getting affronted.

If they were so keen on getting a particular message on a specific cake, they could have gone to another more accommodating bakery. They were not denied a choice.

But that wasn't the point. They wanted THIS bakery called out.
You never did respond my question about whether you would you be happy to see "No blacks, dogs or Irish" signs in hotels as long as you could find another hotel.

RobinOakapple

2,802 posts

112 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes indeed. It's easy to discriminate against pretty much anyone, you just need to be careful about the reasons given.

anonymous-user

54 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
This has turned out to be one of the most legally complex cases we have had in recent years.
It doesn't look particularity complicated to me: http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisi...



Eric Mc

122,007 posts

265 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
otolith said:
Eric Mc said:
This was a stunt deliberately targeted on this particular bakery.

It wasn't just an innocent customer being taken by surprise by the bakery's reaction and getting affronted.

If they were so keen on getting a particular message on a specific cake, they could have gone to another more accommodating bakery. They were not denied a choice.

But that wasn't the point. They wanted THIS bakery called out.
You never did respond my question about whether you would you be happy to see "No blacks, dogs or Irish" signs in hotels as long as you could find another hotel.
I don't think you are comparing like with like at all. The shop did not have a sign up saying "we don't serve gays". They were asked to print a campaigning slogan on the cake. They declined - as was their right.

And, as I said earlier, the protagonists could have had a cake with that slogan if they went elsewhere. They were not denied the right to have that cake.


Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 24th October 14:57

Eric Mc

122,007 posts

265 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
La Liga said:
t doesn't look particularity complicated to me: http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisi...
I'm just quoting the QC interviewed on Radio 4 earlier today.

The tricky bit is how do you protect YOUR rights without contravening somebody else's.

otolith

56,086 posts

204 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
It would appear that the courts disagree with you on that.

Your argument that they could have gone somewhere else so it is not a problem would also apply to a minority of racist hotels - or, indeed, hotels that won't let gay couples stay.