And what?
Chrisitian bakers lose appeal case
- Thread starter xtrouble
- Start date
- Status
Harry Angstrom
Striker
By refusing to make a slogan against the current laws of the country, who are the bakers discriminating against?
The discussion we were having wasn't whether discrimination law was correctly applied in this case (frankly I agree it's debatable). The discussion was whether there should be a discrimination law at all.
Harry Angstrom
Striker
We agree 100% on that one.
I've already answered this in the thread. Just goin' 'round in circles tbh.
Harry Angstrom
Striker
Okay, don't bother.
Mackem00
Striker
Apparantly they refused to make the cake because they were gay. I thought it was just the cake that was the problem but apparently not.
Harry Angstrom
Striker
If that is the offence then it is an open and shut case. Guilty.
Mackem00
Striker
Agreed.
Harry Angstrom
Striker
We had served Mr Lee before and we would be happy to serve him again.
"The judges accepted that we did not know that Mr Lee was gay and that he was not the reason we declined the order.
"We have always said it was not about the customer, it was about the message."
Mackem00
Striker
Where's that from Harry? Is that a different case to the one in the thread?
Harry Angstrom
Striker
BBC website regarding the gay cake.
Harry Angstrom
Striker
they have stated they serve the gays.
Mackem00
Striker
Ah well, not homophobic then and a silly ruling imo.
FFS!
It's not about them refusing to serve someone in their shop. They refused to bake the cake i.e. withhold there services on discriminatory grounds. ARGGGH!!
Mackem00
Striker
So they were cakeist? They'd have happily served the gay people something else. In fact they often did. They wouldn't have made the same cake for a straight couple either.FFS!
Billy Rocket
Winger
This piece nails it imho.
Refusing To Bake A Cake With A Political Statement Upon It Is Not A Crime
4 hours ago
This week, a Christian couple who run a bakery and refused to make a cake with the statement “support gay marriage” on it lost their latest court appeal. Now when I first heard this story and didn’t realise the facts, I assumed the bakers had refused to bake the cake because the people asking for it were gay. It was only later that I realised they had refused to bake the cake because they disagreed with the pro-same-sex marriage political statement written upon it.
If they had refused to bake that cake because their clients were gay or they refused to make the cake because it was for a gay wedding, then like that other couple who refused to let a single room out to a gay couple because of their Christian views, I would support them facing the wrath of the law. Except this wasn’t one of those situations. From my understanding, these bakers were targeted because they were known to have Christian beliefs (which everyone knows I criticise every chance I get, especially on their moronic views on sexuality) and were asked to bake a cake with a political statement they knew the bakers would disagree with.
Daniel McArthur, one of the bakers at Ashers said this to the BBC: “We had served Mr Lee before and we would be happy to serve him again.
“The judges accepted that we did not know that Mr Lee was gay and that he was not the reason we declined the order.
“We have always said it was not about the customer, it was about the message.”
This is very different to discrimination. People do not agree with same-sex marriage. I think they are wrong and disagree with them. I believe their views are out of date and bigoted. However, I do support their right to hold that view and to stand by that view, no matter how wrong I believe it is. With this ruling, they say it is about equality, but I wonder if the court would have ruled against this couple if they can refuse to ice a cake because the client wanted a fascist message placing upon it… People can be discriminated against, but not ideas and I believe in this case, the bakers refused to ice the cake because they refused to agree with the message, with the idea behind it.
This case highlights the balance between protecting minority groups from discrimination and persecution and balancing that with individual belief and ideas. On one hand, I believe that the bakers were wrong in their actual belief, but they have served the man in the past, therefore they were not discriminating on his sexuality.
As Maajid Nawaz has said: “But … as in this cake case, refusing to endorse an *idea* that promotes equality – though also wrong – should remain legal, so that free speech can challenge it.
“No matter how silly a Muslim fundamentalist can be (and silly they are) they should be allowed to refuse drawing the prophet Muhammad on a cake, just like these Christians should have been left alone.
“I have no problem with ‘gay cakes’, nor ‘blasphemous cakes’, but I don’t want to force religious fundamentalists to do anything but tolerate liberals like me.
No idea is above scrutiny, no people are beneath dignity.”
Although seriously if you are against gay marriage, it is rather simple. Don’t get gay married and leave the rest of us alone.
Refusing To Bake A Cake With A Political Statement Upon It Is Not A Crime
Logon or register to see this image
The Mec Journal4 hours ago
This week, a Christian couple who run a bakery and refused to make a cake with the statement “support gay marriage” on it lost their latest court appeal. Now when I first heard this story and didn’t realise the facts, I assumed the bakers had refused to bake the cake because the people asking for it were gay. It was only later that I realised they had refused to bake the cake because they disagreed with the pro-same-sex marriage political statement written upon it.
If they had refused to bake that cake because their clients were gay or they refused to make the cake because it was for a gay wedding, then like that other couple who refused to let a single room out to a gay couple because of their Christian views, I would support them facing the wrath of the law. Except this wasn’t one of those situations. From my understanding, these bakers were targeted because they were known to have Christian beliefs (which everyone knows I criticise every chance I get, especially on their moronic views on sexuality) and were asked to bake a cake with a political statement they knew the bakers would disagree with.
Daniel McArthur, one of the bakers at Ashers said this to the BBC: “We had served Mr Lee before and we would be happy to serve him again.
“The judges accepted that we did not know that Mr Lee was gay and that he was not the reason we declined the order.
“We have always said it was not about the customer, it was about the message.”
This is very different to discrimination. People do not agree with same-sex marriage. I think they are wrong and disagree with them. I believe their views are out of date and bigoted. However, I do support their right to hold that view and to stand by that view, no matter how wrong I believe it is. With this ruling, they say it is about equality, but I wonder if the court would have ruled against this couple if they can refuse to ice a cake because the client wanted a fascist message placing upon it… People can be discriminated against, but not ideas and I believe in this case, the bakers refused to ice the cake because they refused to agree with the message, with the idea behind it.
This case highlights the balance between protecting minority groups from discrimination and persecution and balancing that with individual belief and ideas. On one hand, I believe that the bakers were wrong in their actual belief, but they have served the man in the past, therefore they were not discriminating on his sexuality.
As Maajid Nawaz has said: “But … as in this cake case, refusing to endorse an *idea* that promotes equality – though also wrong – should remain legal, so that free speech can challenge it.
“No matter how silly a Muslim fundamentalist can be (and silly they are) they should be allowed to refuse drawing the prophet Muhammad on a cake, just like these Christians should have been left alone.
“I have no problem with ‘gay cakes’, nor ‘blasphemous cakes’, but I don’t want to force religious fundamentalists to do anything but tolerate liberals like me.
No idea is above scrutiny, no people are beneath dignity.”
Although seriously if you are against gay marriage, it is rather simple. Don’t get gay married and leave the rest of us alone.
If no crime has been committed then the Supreme Court will rule that no crime has been committed.
Articles like that should really be entitled "this kind of discrimation is a crime but shouldn't be and here's why" but that isn't very snappy
- Status
