The end result of Gay Cake-gate

The gays in the gay-cake debacle had purposefully looked for a shop where they knew the owner wouldn't draw a big pair of naked gays on a cake. It was a PR stunt. It's like asking a Muslim to draw Mohammed on a cake.

This is bordering on criminal negligence. The pharmacist could be putting her health at risk. Totally different scenario, OP is a WUM.
 


HellsBells said:
So there are times when you should be able to discriminate against people based on Sky fairies?
Click to expand...

You should be able to withdraw you’re services to any person for any reason you want.

Medicine has a hippocratic oath which originally specifically dealt with abortion and was against it.

This has subsequently become superseded by abortion laws. A doctor writes a prescription which supersedes a pharmacists medical or otherwise opinion. Their are other pharmacies available.

The reasoning behind it is not significant and to tag this as sexism as it says in the article is about as disingenuous as it gets.

No one should be compelled to provide anything. The market will ultimately decide whether the pharmacist is right or wrong. The chain has obviously let the guy go to counteract the fallout. Everyone got the service they wanted in the end, albeit causing hurt feelings all round.

It’s honestly such a non story and actually a pretty good case of “multiculturalism” that’s caused conflict done right.
 
Horatio Pugwash said:
Were they the ones you were referring to in the thread title?
Click to expand...
Yes. I was referring to general gay cakes.

richyrich said:
The gays in the gay-cake debacle had purposefully looked for a shop where they knew the owner wouldn't draw a big pair of naked gays on a cake. It was a PR stunt. It's like asking a Muslim to draw Mohammed on a cake.

This is bordering on criminal negligence. The pharmacist could be putting her health at risk. Totally different scenario, OP is a WUM.
Click to expand...
GENERAL GAY CAKES MAN!! Not that specific situation!!

Discriminating on the basis of religion. End of.

dickie mc rich said:
You should be able to withdraw you’re services to any person for any reason you want.

Medicine has a hippocratic oath which originally specifically dealt with abortion and was against it.

This has subsequently become superseded by abortion laws. A doctor writes a prescription which supersedes a pharmacists medical or otherwise opinion. Their are other pharmacies available.

The reasoning behind it is not significant and to tag this as sexism as it says in the article is about as disingenuous as it gets.

No one should be compelled to provide anything. The market will ultimately decide whether the pharmacist is right or wrong. The chain has obviously let the guy go to counteract the fallout. Everyone got the service they wanted in the end, albeit causing hurt feelings all round.

It’s honestly such a non story and actually a pretty good case of “multiculturalism” that’s caused conflict done right.
Click to expand...
The market won’t. As others have pointed out, it didn’t in the past.

Otherwise we can do away with ALL legislation in the world and let the market sort everything out. The planet would be fucked in ten years.
 
Last edited:
HellsBells said:
Yes. I was referring to general gay cakes.


GENERAL GAY CAKES MAN!! Not that specific situation!!

Discriminating on the basis of religion. End of.


The market won’t. As others have pointed out, it didn’t in the past.

Otherwise we can do away with ALL legislation in the world and let the market sort everything out. The planet would be fucked in ten years.
Click to expand...
So you want legislation that will force people to do what they don’t want to do in these cases? Quite authoritarian imo, I quite like being able to think, speak and act freely.

What punishment should be dished out to those who ignore this legislation you’re proposing?

Or should people who think differently from you be banned from holding certain positions in certain industries and sectors?
 
dickie mc rich said:
So you want legislation that will force people to do what they don’t want to do in these cases? Quite authoritarian imo, I quite like being able to think, speak and act freely.

What punishment should be dished out to those who ignore this legislation you’re proposing?

Or should people who think differently from you be banned from holding certain positions in certain industries and sectors?
Click to expand...
Well, if you read the rest of the thread, this legislation already exists.

I like being able to speak and act freely, but not when it discriminates against other people. Which is already illegal in this country, don't forget.
Unless you think people should just be able to act freely and discriminate against anyone they fancy?
 

Back
Top