The end result of Gay Cake-gate

Status
Not open for further replies.
HellsBells said:
This is where allowing people to discriminate against people on the basis of their religious beliefs gets us.

Pharmacist allegedly denies woman miscarriage medication over religious beliefs

A pharmacist refuses to give a woman drugs that she has a prescription for, because those drugs can be used to have an abortion and he’s Catholic.

She’s just had a miscarriage and she needs the drug to avoid serious complications.

He refuses to let her speak to anyone else in the pharmacy, and apparently also refuses to give her the prescription back so she can take it elsewhere. She had to go to another of the same chain, 3.5 hours away.
Click to expand...

Allegedly and not really the same is it.
 


Big Sharp Teeth said:
I think that’s a false extrapolation mind.

As much as I think the cake people were dicks they didn’t actually discriminate in their service. They wouldn’t have put that message on the cake for straight people either. And, as far as we’re aware, they would have put a message they agreed with on a cake for a gay couple. They just didn’t agree with the message. I disagree with their viewpoint, but then again I wouldn’t want to feel obligated to put a message supporting making sex before marriage illegal on a cake in my imaginary cake making business. It should be my choice, even if it makes religious people cross.
Click to expand...
I agree the gay cake thing that was recently in the news was different - it said people didn't have to express an opinion they didn't want to, which I totally agree with.

But saying that people can refuse service on the basis of it pissing off their religious beliefs is where this specific example ends up.

So, apologies, I didn't earn this specific gay cake, I meant general gay cake (particularly America, given this is also the US).

Allowing people to refuse service on the basis of religion is wrong.

Pop said:
Allegedly and not really the same is it.
Click to expand...
See above. You shouldn't be able to refuse service on the basis of religion.

Pseudonym Number 1 said:
So how is that in anyway related to what happened in n Ireland ?
Click to expand...
You what??

CEF said:
Asking someone to make an item promoting an illegal activity, and them refusing as they don't agree with it, is a bit different from a medical professional refusing to do his job.
Click to expand...
I agree. Apologies I wasn't clear. See above.

Horatio Pugwash said:
Was the woman only asking for the drugs to wind the pharmacist up? If not this is nothing like the "gay cake" issue
Click to expand...
Its the same as other gay cake issues, as in refusing service on the basis of religion.
 
Last edited:
HellsBells said:
I agree the gay cake thing that was recently in the news was different - it said people didn't have to express an opinion they didn't want to, which I totally agree with.

But saying that people can refuse service on the basis of it pissing off their religious beliefs is where this specific example ends up.

So, apologies, I didn't earn this specific gay cake, I meant general gay cake (particularly America, given this is also the US).

Allowing people to refuse service on the basis of religion is wrong.


See above. You shouldn't be able to refuse service on the basis of religion.


You what??


I agree. Apologies I wasn't clear. See above.


Its the same as other gay cake issues, as in refusing service on the basis of religion.
Click to expand...
Were they also manufactured situations to deliberately cause offence. The bakers should have just said they didn't serve wind up merchants
 
Horatio Pugwash said:
Were they also manufactured situations to deliberately cause offence. The bakers should have just said they didn't serve wind up merchants
Click to expand...
Regardless of how the situations came about - allowing people to discriminate against buyers on the basis of their religion is wrong.

People will say there are other shops/bakers/pharmacies you can go to, but this is what happens when you allow that.
 
HellsBells said:
Regardless of how the situations came about - allowing people to discriminate against buyers on the basis of their religion is wrong.

People will say there are other shops/bakers/pharmacies you can go to, but this is what happens when you allow that.
Click to expand...
I can see your point but is it any worse than forcing someone to do something against their religious beliefs in order to prove a political point?

What about someone in a job being forced to do something by an employer which they found to be against their religious beliefs?
 
Horatio Pugwash said:
I can see your point but is it any worse than forcing someone to do something against their religious beliefs in order to prove a political point?

What about someone in a job being forced to do something by an employer which they found to be against their religious beliefs?
Click to expand...
Same as that woman in the US who was a marriage registrar who refused to marry gay people. She probably shouldn't be in a job that's against her religion. Or pass it on to someone else in the same store who can provide the service (which is what this store in question said should have happened, but the pharmacist was a dick).

Question for pharmacists - do you take the Hippocratic oath like doctors do? ( @Bad_mother )
 
HellsBells said:
Regardless of how the situations came about - allowing people to discriminate against buyers on the basis of their religion is wrong.

People will say there are other shops/bakers/pharmacies you can go to, but this is what happens when you allow that.
Click to expand...

Who is allowing it? One shop in Ireland?
 
HellsBells said:
Same as that woman in the US who was a marriage registrar who refused to marry gay people. She probably shouldn't be in a job that's against her religion. Or pass it on to someone else in the same store who can provide the service (which is what this store in question said should have happened, but the pharmacist was a dick).

Question for pharmacists - do you take the Hippocratic oath like doctors do? ( @Bad_mother )
Click to expand...
I was thinking more of the reports of supermarket employees in the UK who refuse to handle pork or alcohol

Should they be forced to?

HellsBells said:
Same as that woman in the US who was a marriage registrar who refused to marry gay people. She probably shouldn't be in a job that's against her religion. Or pass it on to someone else in the same store who can provide the service (which is what this store in question said should have happened, but the pharmacist was a dick).

Question for pharmacists - do you take the Hippocratic oath like doctors do? ( @Bad_mother )
Click to expand...
Did the gay couple ask for her specifically?
 
Last edited:
Horatio Pugwash said:
I was thinking more of the reports of supermarket employees in the UK who refuse to handle pork or alcohol

Should they be forced to?


Did the gay couple ask for her specifically?
Click to expand...
a) no but they should be forced to refer it to another member of the shop, and if there is no one in the shop available the shop should be forced to make sure there is.

b) she was the only person qualified to do it iirc.

Lefty Frizzell said:
What about the mothers and children?
Click to expand...
Eh?
 
HellsBells said:
a) no but they should be forced to refer it to another member of the shop, and if there is no one in the shop available the shop should be forced to make sure there is.

b) she was the only person qualified to do it iirc.


Eh?
Click to expand...
He could always have taken his trade somewhere else.

Let's face it, he was a dickhead (as is anyone who describes themselves as an activist) he went out of his way to cause offence and get his ten minutes of fame. It's backfired on him and he lost.

This is very different to a situation where only one person is qualified to provide a service (although I'm very surprised to hear there is only one registrar in the entire USA ;))
 
HellsBells said:
Regardless of how the situations came about - allowing people to discriminate against buyers on the basis of their religion is wrong.

People will say there are other shops/bakers/pharmacies you can go to, but this is what happens when you allow that.
Click to expand...

I tried this same argument on the original thread on this subject but apparently I was wrong - belief in an invisible man in the sky grants you the right to discriminate against other people in a way that no other belief does. This was the received wisdom of the SMB. Good luck.
 
PinzaC55 said:
I tried this same argument on the original thread on this subject but apparently I was wrong - belief in an invisible man in the sky grants you the right to discriminate against other people in a way that no other belief does. This was the received wisdom of the SMB. Good luck.
Click to expand...

Religion is, and will remain, a massive part of society. I'm not religious but naturally it plays a big part in our society
 
HellsBells said:
This is where allowing people to discriminate against people on the basis of their religious beliefs gets us.

Pharmacist allegedly denies woman miscarriage medication over religious beliefs

A pharmacist refuses to give a woman drugs that she has a prescription for, because those drugs can be used to have an abortion and he’s Catholic.

She’s just had a miscarriage and she needs the drug to avoid serious complications.

He refuses to let her speak to anyone else in the pharmacy, and apparently also refuses to give her the prescription back so she can take it elsewhere. She had to go to another of the same chain, 3.5 hours away.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but that comparison is absolute bollocks.
 
HellsBells said:
More in America.

Same as B&B owners not allowing gay couples to stay....wedding registrars not marrying
gay people etc.
Click to expand...
If you value free speech and freedom of expression this is a small price to pay. People have every right to withhold their services based upon whatever beliefs they hold. The market will see that pay the price if their views are repellant enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top