Christian Bakers Win "Gay Cake" Supreme Court appeal

  • Thread starter Deleted member 27897
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.


JAZZMANB said:
Ask a Dj to play Kasabian and they'll refuse ,sounds spot on to me
Click to expand...

My mate used to always end up in poncey R&B nightclubs. He could never understand why the DJ always refused his request to play Paradise Coty.

Some Random Guy said:
How is that a comparison?
"
Click to expand...

Just another silly case of somebody not wanting to do something they are asked out of "principles". He, in his case, wasn't taken to court over the matter.
 
Some Random Guy said:
Mate, if they simply didn't like gays this wouldn't have gotten to the supreme court. Religious interests were pretty important here.

Totally agree about their being tolerance and respect from both sides. I think both sides have been rank
Click to expand...
I haven't read the case,is there more than just disagreeing with gay marriage ? more to the point refusing to put words on a cake.What other factors where there to make it such a big case ?Did they rally the local shops to ban the couple ?
 
JAZZMANB said:
I haven't read the case,is there more than just disagreeing with gay marriage ? more to the point refusing to put words on a cake.What other factors where there to make it such a big case ?Did they rally the local shops to ban the couple ?
Click to expand...
The company's argument was that the slogan was inconsistent with its owners religious beliefs.

The outcome today means there will probably be loads of cases in court where services are refused based on the beliefs of company owners.
 
Some Random Guy said:
The company's argument was that the slogan was inconsistent with its owners religious beliefs.

The outcome today means there will probably be loads of cases in court where services are refused based on the beliefs of company owners.
Click to expand...
Doubt it somehow mate,everyone sells with smallprint thats never read.99% of transactions are made without anyones personal concerns affected .Unless the owners chased them out of the shop holding up a cross and shouting hellfire this should have ended that day.
 
The correct decision. You should have the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason, be that their sexual orientation, religious beliefs, maybe you don't like people with hair parted to the left, or anyone with two vowels in their first name.

You'll probably go out of business that way, but you should have the right to do it.
 
JAZZMANB said:
Doubt it somehow mate,everyone sells with smallprint thats never read.99% of transactions are made without anyones personal concerns affected .Unless the owners chased them out of the shop holding up a cross and shouting hellfire this should have ended that day.
Click to expand...
I'm actually agree, I just fall on the side of "just make the cake FFS" rather the "just go to another shop FFS". How many fucks I give could fit onto the edge of the coin.

Given its cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and has dragged through the courts for years it wasn't as clear cut in the eyes of the law

S.S.R.. said:
The correct decision. You should have the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason, be that their sexual orientation, religious beliefs, maybe you don't like people with hair parted to the left, or anyone with two vowels in their first name.

You'll probably go out of business that way, but you should have the right to do it.
Click to expand...
No. Not at all. You either don't understand why the outcome was this or must be taking the piss here
 
The Muffin Man said:
Surely they would agree on this given they both pray to the same God and often Christians will accept Muhammad as a prophet? Allah simply means God, Christians in Arabic countries also refer to God as Allah, as they speak Arabic. Jews who speak Arabic also refer to God as Allah.
Click to expand...
Well if they disagreed with it, they wouldn't have to make it, is the point.
 
I agree with the verdict, i think . It wasn't a refusal to sell a cake to gay people it was a refusal to be forced into making a statement you dont agree with . That being said its an interesting point about the human rights of limited companies if they have any . Sole traders fair enough but companies are different
 
Some Random Guy said:
I'm actually agree, I just fall on the side of "just make the cake FFS" rather the "just go to another shop FFS". How many fucks I give could fit onto the edge of the coin.

Given its cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and has dragged through the courts for years it wasn't as clear cut in the eyes of the law


No. Not at all. You either don't understand why the outcome was this or must be taking the piss here
Click to expand...
Just thinking on the way home
Go in a tattoo parlour
Will you do this for me ?
No mate
Why ,just not my thing religious pieces (insert hundred other things )
You walk out ,end of
 
Keawyeds said:
Correct. They just refused to decorate it with the words "Support Gay Marriage".
If they don't agree with that idea, they shouldn't be made to write it on a cake.

I'd have thought if they object to any message it's up to them whether or not they write it on a cake.
Isn't it the case that they would be then seen to endorse what was on the cake?

Odd case to say the least
Click to expand...
Sorry but I think the bakers are in the wrong.

It’s clearly discrimination, claiming they wouldn’t have done that for anyone is bollocks. How many straight people would ask for that?

JAZZMANB said:
Just thinking on the way home
Go in a tattoo parlour
Will you do this for me ?
No mate
Why ,just not my thing religious pieces (insert hundred other things )
You walk out ,end of
Click to expand...
What if it was a photo framing place who refused to frame photos of black people?

Religious views have no place at work.
 
Hep said:
Sorry but I think the bakers are in the wrong.

It’s clearly discrimination, claiming they wouldn’t have done that for anyone is bollocks. How many straight people would ask for that?
Click to expand...
The argument (that lost in court and on appeal) is that they have served him in the past and would again regardless of where he likes putting his genitals.

Personally I think the bakers are in the wrong too, the supreme court disagreed today.

Hep said:
What if it was a photo framing place who refused to frame photos of black people?
Click to expand...
Depends, have they refused to frame the photo because someone was wearing a "once you go black you never go back" t-shirt in the picture and their own sexual liaison with a black person was shit?
 
Last edited:
Hep said:
Sorry but I think the bakers are in the wrong.

It’s clearly discrimination, claiming they wouldn’t have done that for anyone is bollocks. How many straight people would ask for that?


What if it was a photo framing place who refused to frame photos of black people?

Religious views have no place at work.
Click to expand...

It's nothing like a picture framing business refusing to frame a picture of black people. Now if they said fuck off we don't serve gays that would be discrimination, they would have made him a cake they just didn't want to make one that goes against their beliefs. Surely forcing people into making pro gay cakes when it goes against their religious views, no matter how f***ing backward they are is wrong as well. He should have just went to another shop that wasn't ran by religious f***ing idiots.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top