Christian Bakery vs Queerspace

Author
Discussion

irocfan

40,156 posts

189 months

Thursday 21st May 2015
quotequote all
deeen said:
Mrr T said:
The right to be a bigot is an essential part of free speech.
Where did this "right" come from, who was it assigned by, and what responsibilities go along with this "right"?

I think the reality is the opposite of your statement - it's not illegal to be a bigot, but it is illegal to speak freely about your bigoted views, or act on them, in certain cases.
actually it IS legal to speak freely about your bigoted views as long as you're not encouraging hate (Choudry would seem to be a prime example of this). Acting on your bigoted views however is something totally different

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Thursday 21st May 2015
quotequote all
Thorodin said:
There are obviously some legally trained or experienced people on here, although the opinions vary considerably. As you might expect, and even eventually come to regret, if ever your need to employ them befalls you. It occurs to me that some of the language used in these exchanges is somewhat illuminating. Expressions such as 'bible thumping Ulster prods' may or may not be within the law, but boy does it speak volumes about the mind-set. And 'maybe they just don't like gays' is used in ignorance unless you know the couple personally. Maybe they just don't like homosexuality. Or is it now compulsory, because I think we need to know. For obvious reasons. As I said earlier, don't they just love to put vexatious arguments!
The expression "bible thumping Ulster prods" was mine, based on many years doing business and spending time in N.I. I would contend it's a perfect description of the family that own the bakery. Also, I completely defended their right to disapprove of homosexuality and gays, even to hate them. We don't have thought crime in this country yet, and it's a good thing too. Nobody is obligated to like or approve of anyone.

But, if you're running a business that serves the public, don't break the law by discriminating against those you dislike.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Thursday 21st May 2015
quotequote all
MX51ROD said:
I wonder if the would dare to try to order a cake from Grodzinski Bakers also in Stamford Hill and when turned away tried to take them on in court ,
You experience of Jewish business people is sadly lacking. Not only would they bake the cake, they'd probably talk them into buying a more elaborate one at double the price and end up striking a deal to supply regular pro gay iced cakes to Outrage, Stonewall, and every gay organisation going! hehe

deeen

6,079 posts

244 months

Thursday 21st May 2015
quotequote all
irocfan said:
actually it IS legal to speak freely about your bigoted views as long as you're not encouraging hate (Choudry would seem to be a prime example of this). Acting on your bigoted views however is something totally different
Really? I thought it was illegal to express bigoted views which could be seen as discriminatory about the 4 "protected minorities" (not sure if I have the correct term here). So I can think what I like, but I can't say (within earshot) "All ***** smell", for example, if ***** falls in one of those categories.

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Thursday 21st May 2015
quotequote all
deeen said:
irocfan said:
actually it IS legal to speak freely about your bigoted views as long as you're not encouraging hate (Choudry would seem to be a prime example of this). Acting on your bigoted views however is something totally different
Really? I thought it was illegal to express bigoted views which could be seen as discriminatory about the 4 "protected minorities" (not sure if I have the correct term here). So I can think what I like, but I can't say (within earshot) "All ***** smell", for example, if ***** falls in one of those categories.
It's also 'illegal' if someone chooses to be offended or feels that someone else might be offended by your opinions. That's all it takes.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
Mr GrimNasty said:
It's also 'illegal' if someone chooses to be offended or feels that someone else might be offended by your opinions. That's all it takes.
Now that isn't really true, is it.

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
It's also 'illegal' if someone chooses to be offended or feels that someone else might be offended by your opinions. That's all it takes.
Now that isn't really true, is it.
Yes it is, go learn the law.

MX51ROD

2,731 posts

146 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
JonRB said:
Not at all. I was merely observing that it didn't say anything new or add anything to the debate especially as, by your own admission, you were too lazy to have read the thread and to have read the responses that were already there to the opinion you posted.
Being lazy had nothing to do with it , I had come into the debate late having been away for a couple of days , I read in on the first few pages and saw the general direction , and content , some were intelligent , some from the PC stasi and some just babble , I gave up, seeing I had over 34 pages to wade through .
I added my 2 penny worth and moved on
If that offended the “Must not repeat opinion brigade “ too bad , bothered , nah life is too important ,


TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
Mr GrimNasty said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
It's also 'illegal' if someone chooses to be offended or feels that someone else might be offended by your opinions. That's all it takes.
Now that isn't really true, is it.
Yes it is, go learn the law.
Well I find you idiocy offensive. What law can I use to sue you?

Johnnytheboy

24,498 posts

185 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
irocfan said:
Bill said:
Johnnytheboy said:
As - I believe - gay marriage is still illegal in NI, could one now request a message advocating any lawbreaking, and not be refused?

"Support paedophilia"?
Don't be silly. Gay marriage is not illegal, it is just not recognised. Even if it was illegal, they are campaigning for a change in the law rather than for people to break the law.
clumsily put by Johnny, but I think what he's trying to say is that a request to make a similar cake made in support of lowering the age of consent to (let's say) 10 would be turned down even though a campaign to do this would be legal.



As regards the case I disagree with the findings - IF the cake had been requested as "To my darling partner Bert from his eternally loving partner Ernie" and been refused then I'd say bang to rights they should be prosecuted...
I prefer 'bluntly put' but you are quite right.

You either allow anyone to request anything that's currently illegal to be made lawful be written on a cake, or you don't.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
Johnnytheboy said:
You either allow anyone to request anything that's currently illegal to be made lawful be written on a cake, or you don't.
Why? There is no law, as far as I know, that says people who wish the age of consent to be lowered to 10 have to be treated equally to those who wish to raise it to 20!

A business is quite entitled to act in a prejudicial way to any group who doesn't have the protection of equality in law.

As I said earlier, if someone wants a cake in the shape of a frog, I can say no if I don't like frogs, even though I made a lizard shaped cake for someone else. Because frog lovers are not protected in law. Mainly because there's little historical reason to give them protection.

Thorodin

2,459 posts

132 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The expression "bible thumping Ulster prods" was mine, based on many years doing business and spending time in N.I. I would contend it's a perfect description of the family that own the bakery. Also, I completely defended their right to disapprove of homosexuality and gays, even to hate them. We don't have thought crime in this country yet, and it's a good thing too. Nobody is obligated to like or approve of anyone.

But, if you're running a business that serves the public, don't break the law by discriminating against those you dislike.
No wish to get into pedantics about the law with you, although that's what it thrives on, but your professed familiarity with matters NI, I would have thought, would have given you pause to think about using such inflammatory language when discussing those local affairs. It also goes to remove any doubt there may have been regarding your impartiality. In fact the 'many years' you claim would make most observers very cautious about such a situation. Given the tenor of your replies here, and now the inflammatory language, I wonder just what your intentions are. Also, you seem to claim personal knowledge of 'the family that own the bakery' with your contention that it is a 'perfect description of the family...'. If I have misquoted you, or quoted you out of context, I am sure you will let me know.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
Thorodin said:
It also goes to remove any doubt there may have been regarding your impartiality.
I'm completely impartial. I don't like bigots. Be they catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Muslim or atheist.



jonby

5,357 posts

156 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
I've been meaning to ask a question but I'm more than a little wary of the potential response...........

Am I the only person on here that thinks gay marriage doesn't necessarily fit into equality laws and that being against gay marriage is not necessarily bigoted ?

Of course some people against it are simply bigoted but as I see it, to some people, the very word marriage is much more about a religious union than a legal or civil one. In that religious definition, depending upon which religion you subscribe to, marriage is very strictly defined as being between a man & a woman.

Now for me personally, I see marriage as more of a legal/civil/romantic status therefore I believe in the rights of gay couples to marry. In fact, I'd prefer the French system which completely separates the civil/legal marriage from the religious marriage ceremony - you have to get married under the auspices of the state, normally in a town hall, as a completely separate ceremony in a different venue to the church/synagogue/mosque that you might also choose to get married in for religious recognition. If we did that here in the UK, it would also solve the current problems that some churches experience with regard to gay marriage as it would be simpler to leave each church to decide what they are/are not willing to do

But in this country, where we do have a 'state church', it all gets a little more blurred. Is it not possible therefore for some people to believe that everyone should have equal rights in employment and all other matters regardless of sexuality, but not believe in gay marriage, simply because of the connotations to them of the very word, without necessarily being bigoted or 'anti-equality' ?



Edited by jonby on Friday 22 May 16:15

irocfan

40,156 posts

189 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
jonby said:
Am I the only person on here that thinks gay marriage doesn't necessarily fit into equality laws and that being against gay marriage is not necessarily bigoted ?

Of course some people against it are simply bigoted but as I see it, to some people, the very word marriage is much more about a religious union than a legal or civil one. In that religious definition, depending upon which religion you subscribe to, marriage is very strictly defined as being between a man & a woman.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
jonby said:
Of course some people against it are simply bigoted but as I see it, to some people, the very word marriage is much more about a religious union than a legal or civil one. In that religious definition, depending upon which religion you subscribe to, marriage is very strictly defined as being between a man & a woman.
That would be all very well if those people were up in arms about straight couples marrying in a registry office. Thus in contradiction of a religious union. But they are not. They are quite relaxed about straight couples having a non religious marriage.

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
jonby said:
I've been meaning to ask a question but I'm more than a little wary of the potential response...........

Am I the only person on here that thinks gay marriage doesn't necessarily fit into equality laws and that being against gay marriage is not necessarily bigoted ?

Of course some people against it are simply bigoted but as I see it, to some people, the very word marriage is much more about a religious union than a legal or civil one. In that religious definition, depending upon which religion you subscribe to, marriage is very strictly defined as being between a man & a woman.

Now for me personally, I see marriage as more of a legal/civil/romantic status therefore I believe in the rights of gay couples to marry. In fact, I'd prefer the French system which completely separates the civil/legal marriage from the religious marriage ceremony - you have to get married under the auspices of the state, normally in a town hall, as a completely separate ceremony in a different venue to the church/synagogue/mosque that you might also choose to get married in for religious recognition. If we did that here in the UK, it would also solve the current problems that some churches experience with regard to gay marriage as it would be simpler to leave each church to decide what they are/are not willing to do

But in this country, where we do have a 'state church', it all gets a little more blurred. Is it not possible therefore for some people to believe that everyone should have equal rights in employment and all other matters regardless of sexuality, but not believe in gay marriage, simply because of the connotations to them of the very word, without necessarily being bigoted or 'anti-equality' ?



Edited by jonby on Friday 22 May 16:15
The religious who object to gay marriage are not doing so because they don't want gays marrying in church. They just don't want gays marrying.

In this country you can ignore all churchy aspects of marriage and do your own thing within the state regs.

The history of marriage is quite fascinating. I read up on it for my elder daughter's marriage - hell of a speech, I can tell you - and I spent hours reading various links.

In essence, the marriage ceremony was just a nice little earner for the church. All they did normally was to 'bless', i.e. ask for money, from those already married. Couples were married when they said they were in effect. Common law marriage. A vicar would visit from time to time, say a few words, hold out the collecting tin and be on his way. Many couples just stayed together and were de facto married as they were viewed as such by those in their village. If, for instance, the man died leaving the widow with no means of support, the villagers would be obligated to support her and her offspring. So they were married in all but the eyes of the church. So they were married.

A bit different for kings and such, as Hen VIII found out. Then it was used as a political weapon. Despite Henry having a good case for a divorce, the then vicar of christ was 'under the influence of' the king of Spain, a relative of Cathy, and so refused.

The Hardicke Act of the 1750s or thereabouts limited the freedom of people to get married in their own way as the industrial revolution dragged people away from villages and into towns and so no one knew who was already married. The state said all marriages must be registered in a state church - CofE - and so they got more money. It was a form of PFI. This meant that Jews, catholics and other assorted religions either had to pay for the CoE ceremony or else be unmarried in the eyes of the state.

Churches have had their day with regards marriage and should have nothing to do with weddings over and above what, say, pubs and hotels have nowadays. They should, in effect, wind their necks in and leave people to do what they want to do and not interfere.


jonby

5,357 posts

156 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
The religious who object to gay marriage are not doing so because they don't want gays marrying in church. They just don't want gays marrying.

In this country you can ignore all churchy aspects of marriage and do your own thing within the state regs.

The history of marriage is quite fascinating. I read up on it for my elder daughter's marriage - hell of a speech, I can tell you - and I spent hours reading various links.

In essence, the marriage ceremony was just a nice little earner for the church. All they did normally was to 'bless', i.e. ask for money, from those already married. Couples were married when they said they were in effect. Common law marriage. A vicar would visit from time to time, say a few words, hold out the collecting tin and be on his way. Many couples just stayed together and were de facto married as they were viewed as such by those in their village. If, for instance, the man died leaving the widow with no means of support, the villagers would be obligated to support her and her offspring. So they were married in all but the eyes of the church. So they were married.

A bit different for kings and such, as Hen VIII found out. Then it was used as a political weapon. Despite Henry having a good case for a divorce, the then vicar of christ was 'under the influence of' the king of Spain, a relative of Cathy, and so refused.

The Hardicke Act of the 1750s or thereabouts limited the freedom of people to get married in their own way as the industrial revolution dragged people away from villages and into towns and so no one knew who was already married. The state said all marriages must be registered in a state church - CofE - and so they got more money. It was a form of PFI. This meant that Jews, catholics and other assorted religions either had to pay for the CoE ceremony or else be unmarried in the eyes of the state.

Churches have had their day with regards marriage and should have nothing to do with weddings over and above what, say, pubs and hotels have nowadays. They should, in effect, wind their necks in and leave people to do what they want to do and not interfere.
Some fascinating stuff in there

Particularly the bit about catholics & jews paying for the CoE ceremony

But with regards to your first line, I appreciate they don't want gays marrying, my question is however that if they don't want gays marrying because the very word (to them) is inherently about a man, a woman and children being (attempted to be) conceived, but they are happy for a gay couple to have the legal rights to a civil partnership, does that necessarily make them bigoted ? Or does it simply mean that they have a different definition of the word marriage, which is more in line with the historical view on the word/status


jonby

5,357 posts

156 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
jonby said:
Of course some people against it are simply bigoted but as I see it, to some people, the very word marriage is much more about a religious union than a legal or civil one. In that religious definition, depending upon which religion you subscribe to, marriage is very strictly defined as being between a man & a woman.
That would be all very well if those people were up in arms about straight couples marrying in a registry office. Thus in contradiction of a religious union. But they are not. They are quite relaxed about straight couples having a non religious marriage.
I am sure there are many religious people, particularly those within the Christian faith, who would prefer marriage was given a different name such as civil partnership, when it isn't carried out by a religious institution

Whichever way you look at it, the fact remains that the way we have all been brought up to think about the word & institution of 'marriage' has changed dramatically in just a few generations and I suppose my original post was about the fact that some will find that easier to get their head around than others - I don't personally think that necessarily makes them bigoted or homophobic.


Bill

52,485 posts

254 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
I'm sure they would, but that boat left 180 years ago.