Christian Bakery vs Queerspace

[otolith]

JagLover said:

otolith said:

Blacks, dogs and Irish could have stayed elsewhere. Rosa Parks could have sat at the back. It's a facile argument for tolerating bigotry.

You keep making this comparison and it appears totally spurious.

A correct comparison is the hotel owner being quite happy for Black people to stay there, but banning them from hanging a Black Panthers poster from the window as they don't support their campaign.

No, it's a specific refutation of the argument that discrimination ought to be tolerated if you can get the service elsewhere.

You're arguing that the discrimination is legitimate, not that it doesn't matter because there are cake shops not run by bigots.

[anonymous-user]

popeyewhite said:

La Liga said:

What I would say is those in bold are going to be influencing our beliefs / values within the shape of the law. They teach us not to hit people and steal for two obvious examples.

I'm afraid I disagree there as well. Basic beliefs and values passed down by parents are more likely to be shaped by past religious practices than any law. And very basic law is grounded in religious practice. You might find several religious passages scripted well before Magna Carta that say it's wrong to hit people and thieve. Believe it or not most parents/schools know the difference between right and wrong and although ethical relativism might explain the acceptance of some slight religious deviations from what is culturally accepted..the 'shape of the law' makes little or no difference to the conditioning and development of a child.

Would you not agree with the teaching LGBT example has some influence or could have if it were true?

In hindsight, writing, "Legislation has a lot of influence on the belief systems of specific cultures etc." was probably wrong given the 'chicken and egg' scenario we face with it.

[ATG]

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?

Because you are paranoid

[Evanivitch]

irocfan said:

they'd apparently served the fella before so he's not discriminating due to his being gay - he was not happy to be seen to be endorsing something he doesn't believe in

Except the baker wasn't being asked to endorse anything. I'm sure he doesn't endorse the majority of themed cakes, and I bet he's made Celtic and Rangers cakes.

Therefore the argument of endorsements falls flat and od this is the only case that he applies that rule then he is being discriminatory to homosexuals.

[grumbledoak]

Evanivitch said:

Except the baker wasn't being asked to endorse anything. I'm sure he doesn't endorse the majority of themed cakes, and I bet he's made Celtic and Rangers cakes.

Therefore the argument of endorsements falls flat and od this is the only case that he applies that rule then he is being discriminatory to homosexuals.

How do you know this?

[ATG]

George111 said:

Eric Mc said:

Did they refuse because the customer was gay or because they didn't like the slogan?

Did they ask the person who walked into the shop if they were gay?

Did they say "We are not putting that slogan on the cake because you are gay"?

What if a heterosexual person walked into the same shop and asked for the same slogan on the same cake and they refused for the same reason?

Eric, you will not get some people on PH to see the common sense you are speaking. Last year, even Peter Tatchell came out in support of the appeal being successful as he realised the folly in a law which will pit one group against another. Today Christians get it in the neck, tomorrow the gays, the day after the Muslims.

With respect, before assuming you're speaking common sense, read the judgement. The basis for the decision was simple and clear.

[ATG]

Evanivitch said:

irocfan said:

they'd apparently served the fella before so he's not discriminating due to his being gay - he was not happy to be seen to be endorsing something he doesn't believe in

Except the baker wasn't being asked to endorse anything. I'm sure he doesn't endorse the majority of themed cakes, and I bet he's made Celtic and Rangers cakes.

Therefore the argument of endorsements falls flat and od this is the only case that he applies that rule then he is being discriminatory to homosexuals.

This ^^^

[JagLover]

otolith said:

No, it's a specific refutation of the argument that discrimination ought to be tolerated if you can get the service elsewhere.

You're arguing that the discrimination is legitimate, not that it doesn't matter because there are cake shops not run by bigots.

It is not about the "service" hence why your comparison was incorrect. The black and Irish guests are fully entitled to stay in the hotel just not to force the proprietor to join them in their political campaign.

Would it by fine in your book for a Christian to go into a gay run bakery and tell them to put icing on a cake saying "it is Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". If not, why not?

I fully support gay marriage, and have no religious inclinations, but this is an example of small minded petty oppression of the type the church used to dish out to so many whether they be single mothers or homosexuals.

[4x4Tyke]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

BS, when somebody supports 'phobic' behaviour it is entirely rational to presume they are 'phobic' unless they prove otherwise.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eric Mc said:

I fully support Gay Marriage. I was delighted when the people of the Irish Republic voted to allow it.

What I am against is forcing others to agree with me - or to bake a cake saying they should agree with me.

I to have no wish to force people to agree with me. People are free to loathe gays if they wish to. We don't have thought crime in the UK. But I'm against people who run a business serving the public using their own beliefs to discriminate against gays, religious minorities, ethnic minorities, women, and other groups that have protection in law.

If you allow that, you are allowing venues to refuse to host a gay marriage party, allowing taxi firms to refuse to take people to the party, allowing caterers to refuse to prepare food for the party.

It's not on. If you want to hate gays, blacks, or whatever, go ahead, knock yourselves out. But don't open a shop, or a B&B etc. and expect to be able to bring that hatred into your dealings with the public.

This isn't rocket science. I really don't see how any right thinking individual can see it any other way.

[Eric Mc]

They didn't stop a gay person doing anything that interfered with their gay rights. Indeed, they would have applied the same criteria to anybody who had requested that particular logo on the cake - whether the person was gay or straight.

They didn't agree with the words, not the person.

[sidicks]

Eric Mc said:

They didn't stop a gay person doing anything that interfered with their gay rights. Indeed, they would have applied the same criteria to anybody who had requested that particular logo on the cake.

They didn't agree with the words, not the person.

You've explained this clearly enough already. Clearly some people don't want to understand the difference.

[Burwood]

What a colossal waste of money (the court case). Dick heads like this baker are lucky they haven't destroyed their business. No room for bigots like this.

[Eric Mc]

It may not be over yet. There is a serious point of principle here - which is nothing to do with gay rights.

They are considering their legal options.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eric Mc said:

They didn't stop a gay person doing anything that interfered with their gay rights. Indeed, they would have applied the same criteria to anybody who had requested that particular logo on the cake - whether the person was gay or straight.

They didn't agree with the words, not the person.

That point has been made an answered a dozen times on this thread. They discriminated by refusing to supply goods to back a gay cause, giving the reason not that they didn't bake cakes for causes, but they didn't bake cakes for causes they disagreed with.

No different from a printer refusing to print leaflets for a black event, regardless of the colour of the person doing the ordering. You shouldn't be able to do that.

What is it about it that you don't get?

[brrapp]

Burwood said:

What a colossal waste of money (the court case). Dick heads like this baker are lucky they haven't destroyed their business. No room for bigots like this.

I agree with your first sentence, but what makes the bakers the 'dick heads'? They didn't start all this. As I see it, right from the start it was a deliberate and calculated ploy by a campaign group to stir up trouble, they suffered no loss. All the bakers have done is tried to defend their (some might say naive) original viewpoint and reputation.

[Eric Mc]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That point has been made an answered a dozen times on this thread. They discriminated by refusing to supply goods to back a gay cause, giving the reason not that they didn't bake cakes for causes, but they didn't bake cakes for causes they disagreed with.

No different from a printer refusing to print leaflets for a black event, regardless of the colour of the person doing the ordering. You shouldn't be able to do that.

What is it about it that you don't get?

The point I was also making was the cause is for the law to change. The bakery's stance was in accordance with the law as it currently stands.

Are we all now supposed to be forced to support causes we don't agree with?

Is upholding the law now an illegal stance?

[otolith]

JagLover said:

otolith said:

No, it's a specific refutation of the argument that discrimination ought to be tolerated if you can get the service elsewhere.

You're arguing that the discrimination is legitimate, not that it doesn't matter because there are cake shops not run by bigots.

It is not about the "service" hence why your comparison was incorrect. The black and Irish guests are fully entitled to stay in the hotel just not to force the proprietor to join them in their political campaign.

That's not what the courts found - but again, the point was made that it doesn't matter because they could have gone elsewhere, and that's specifically the argument I was addressing.

JagLover said:

Would it by fine in your book for a Christian to go into a gay run bakery and tell them to put icing on a cake saying "it is Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". If not, why not?

If there is legislation protecting the rights of homophobes not to be discriminated against, the bakery had better make the cake. I'm not aware of such legislation, though.

[Eric Mc]

DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.

OK - I'll replace the word "support" with "promote".

I just don't think a person who does not agree with a certain legal issue should be forced to assist someone who holds a different view.

They were asked to print a slogan promoting a cause in which they are not in agreement.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eric Mc said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That point has been made an answered a dozen times on this thread. They discriminated by refusing to supply goods to back a gay cause, giving the reason not that they didn't bake cakes for causes, but they didn't bake cakes for causes they disagreed with.

No different from a printer refusing to print leaflets for a black event, regardless of the colour of the person doing the ordering. You shouldn't be able to do that.

What is it about it that you don't get?

The point I was also making was the cause is for the law to change. The bakery's stance was in accordance with the law as it currently stands.

Are we all now supposed to be forced to support causes we don't agree with?

Is upholding the law now an illegal stance?

The law is often altered by precedent. Nothing new there. It's about clarifying the original law, not changing it. The law has decided that the bakery acted illegally.

No one is forced to support causes they don't agree with. Individuals can think what they like. Businesses can't discriminate against gay causes, black causes etc., it they'd happily supply their product for straight causes or white causes.

How can that not be the right decision?