The end result of Gay Cake-gate

Cockney Mackem said:
IMHO the NI gay cake incident is problematic because the original ruling could have been used to force gay bakers to bake a cake arguing for compulsory chemical castration of all gay people. It's also problematic because it's happening in Northern Ireland which is a ludicrous place and shouldn't be used as a precedent in any circumstances ever.

Regarding an independent business refusing service, that can't be an absolute right if people also want fair treatment and the rule of law. If they don't that's different, which I suspect is the case in large parts of the US
Click to expand...

It's a balance of rights and freedom with no easy answer.

Do you prioritise the customers rights or do you prioritise the vendors rights.

Regardless of the business context both have rights as human beings and it's an impossible answer because in these cases they are conflicting
 


moshpit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which is why all the shops and bars and restaurants in the US south that refused to serve black people for decades went bust, yes? Or the landlords here that would have signs up saying No Blacks, No Irish? Or why a small rural shop which is the only one for miles around in a conservative country area would go under if it refused to serve the one out gay man who happens to live nearby?
 
HellsBells said:
I’m saying that particular gay cake (NI) is different. The NI was a sensible decision and wasn’t discrimination I’m regretting not making that clear in my OP.

There have been other instances of gay cakes in the US, B&Bs etc where people have been refused service on the grounds of the providers religion. That’s wrong. And it leads to stuff like this.
Click to expand...
The US has something that no other country in the world has - The First Amendment. You cannot force someone to perform a service they do not wish to perform. It is unconstitutional to do so and forms the bedrock of their free and open society.

As soon as Government decides it can compel you to perform a service against your will, well that's the long, slippery road to 1984.

Don't conflate this mind with refusing entry or access to your service based on race or religion however, that is a separate issue and unconstitutional as per the repealing of the old Jim Crow laws...but if a gay couple specifically request a 'gay' wedding cake be made, then the cake shop owner has every right to say no.

The King of Um said:
Which is why all the shops and bars and restaurants in the US south that refused to serve black people for decades went bust, yes? Or the landlords here that would have signs up saying No Blacks, No Irish? Or why a small rural shop which is the only one for miles around in a conservative country area would go under if it refused to serve the one out gay man who happens to live nearby?
Click to expand...
No, see above. You're conflating two separate issues.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
The UK parliament has authority over the Church of England, including power of veto
Click to expand...
I appreciate that, I'm not saying the CofE have any power per se, but recognising them as the official church of the state and then prosecuting citizens who live by its morals would be backward.
 
moshpit said:
The US has something that no other country in the world has - The First Amendment. You cannot force someone to perform a service they do not wish to perform. It is unconstitutional to do so and forms the bedrock of their free and open society.

As soon as Government decides it can compel you to perform a service against your will, well that's the long, slippery road to 1984.

Don't conflate this mind with refusing entry or access to your service based on race or religion however, that is a separate issue and unconstitutional as per the repealing of the old Jim Crow laws...but if a gay couple specifically request a 'gay' wedding cake be made, then the cake shop owner has every right to say no.


No, see above. You're conflating two separate issues.
Click to expand...
So the pharmacist in the Op was right to refuse a woman emergency medication that had been prescribed to her, because he was Catholic?
 
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...

Nowt to do with the cake thing though. That's just him being a bellend, the cake people were asked to do a statement promoting gay marriage and rightly won.

Should a homosexual cake maker be prosecuted for refusing to bake a cake saying homosexuality is a sin. No they shouldnt.
 
007Iron said:
Do they only have one pharmacy in the whole of America?
Click to expand...
Only one pharmacy chain that the prescription was sent to.

Sidewinder2 said:
Nowt to do with the cake thing though. That's just him being a bellend, the cake people were asked to do a statement promoting gay marriage and rightly won.

Should a homosexual cake maker be prosecuted for refusing to bake a cake saying homosexuality is a sin. No they shouldnt.
Click to expand...
Correct. But that’s expressing an opinion.
 
MonkeyLove said:
It's a balance of rights and freedom with no easy answer.

Do you prioritise the customers rights or do you prioritise the vendors rights.

Regardless of the business context both have rights as human beings and it's an impossible answer because in these cases they are conflicting
Click to expand...

I don't think the answer is that hard. No one is forcing the Catholic pharmacist to have an abortion or use birth control. He doesn't have or need the right to stop other people exercising their legal right to access those things. A business owner has the right to refuse service up to a point, but not to do so in a way that's discriminatory towards other people.
 
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...
see its also stupid, because heres the thing everyone seems to ignore, you don`t have to be an offended attention seeking wanker you simply take your business elsewhere
 
HellsBells said:
So the pharmacist in the Op was right to refuse a woman emergency medication that had been prescribed to her, because he was Catholic?
Click to expand...
It doesn't sit well with me but clearly there are guidelines in place that weren't followed. I'm more surprised that pharmacists are not bound by some kind of oath akin to the Hippocratic one.
 
moshpit said:
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.
Click to expand...

But he didn't just withhold their services. He would not give the prescription back. Surely a Dr. giving a prescription to a patient, entitles that person to those drugs. By refusing and retaining the prescription, he was cancelling it and overuling the DR.
When firms employ people, they should write into their job description that they have to serve everyone and not just pick and choose. That would stop dickheads like this being a twat.

He can have his beliefs, but don't impose them on other people.

I hope he gets sued or sacked or both. Stick you religion up your good catholic arse.
 
HellsBells said:
The woman who’d just had a miscarriage should have taken her business elsewhere?
Click to expand...
reading that article t be honest it seems like they have a tie in over there where a scrip is made out for a specific chemist, whereas we can go to the quacks then go whereever suits us, so perhaps she didnt have the option but the point still stands for other shite we read about, the cake being an example
 
ivanthereasonable said:
But he didn't just withhold their services. He would not give the prescription back. Surely a Dr. giving a prescription to a patient, entitles that person to those drugs. By refusing and retaining the prescription, he was cancelling it and overuling the DR.
When firms employ people, they should write into their job description that they have to serve everyone and not just pick and choose. That would stop dickheads like this being a twat.

He can have his beliefs, but don't impose them on other people.

I hope he gets sued or sacked or both. Stick you religion up your good catholic arse.
Click to expand...
I didn't follow the guidelines and broke the law hence he why doenst work there anymore. It's as simple as that.

The gay cake saga is clear cut...you can't force people to carry out a service if they do not wish to do so.
 

Back
Top