They are on public streets where the public can enter in. It isn't a private property. If you want to set up a business in a city then you shouldn't be able to refuse an order because you want to discriminate.
Last edited:
They are on public streets where the public can enter in. It isn't a private property. If you want to set up a business in a city then you shouldn't be able to refuse an order because you want to discriminate.
Businesses are definitely private property. That's why it's so hard to get cops to come out to parking lot accidents.They are on public streets where the public can enter in. It isn't a private property. If you want to set up a business in a city then you shouldn't be able to refuse an order because you want to discriminate.
So, what? So much red tape may as well let them discriminate? You know what I mean.Businesses are definitely private property. That's why it's so hard to get cops to come out to parking lot accidents.
Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell told the ABC he was very pleased by the decision.
"Let's put things in reverse, I wouldn't feel comfortable with a gay baker being forced by law to decorate a cake with a message against gay marriage," he said.
"If this had been upheld, it could have potentially meant that a Muslim printer could have been obliged by law to publish a cartoon of Muhammad.
"This upholds a really important principle."
This works both ways.
If a person who's catholic and asks an atheist baker to make a cake that says "god says abortion is murder" and the baker doesnt want to make that cake because he disagrees with the message, then he shouldnt be forced to.
Religious beliefs are protected. I think hardly anyone here would agree if that person claimed discrimination because of religious beliefs and the baker should be forced to make the cake.
Personally I believe the bakery was fucked if they made the cake or not.
The activist would've run with a story that the Christian bakery printed a gay logo and took his money should they've made it.
I believe the activist went to this particular bakery with an agenda.
No it doesn't. Abortion is a political view. Gay people should not have equal rights is not a political view.This works both ways.
If a person who's catholic and asks an atheist baker to make a cake that says "god says abortion is murder" and the baker doesnt want to make that cake because he disagrees with the message, then he shouldnt be forced to.
Religious beliefs are protected. I think hardly anyone here would agree if that person claimed discrimination because of religious beliefs and the baker should be forced to make the cake.
You don't get to be against same sex marriage and in support of the LGBT+ community. That's not a thing.I think it's the marriage bit they disagree with rather than support for LBGT+ community.
Here is an interesting perspective on the debate from Australian-born British human rights and gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-...ry-has-supreme-court-win/10363112?pfmredir=sm
It's an interesting debate because it has juxtaposing legal and ethical consequences.
Personally, I think it's wrong to refuse a customer because of their sexuality, but at the same time, the broader consequences as mentioned by Tatchell in the quote above are far-reaching. A decision forcing the baker to make the cake would have set a very dangerous legal precedent that could have been used maliciously by racists and other such people.
I think it becomes a more complex issue for hard-core Christians. I'm not talking about the idiots that use Christianity as a reason to spread hate everywhere and use it as a weapon. I mean proper theological Christians who try to practise what the bible says. So the support would come in the form of showing love and support for everyone including members of the LBGT+ community. But they can't theologically support an act of marriage which is to them seeking God's approval for the coming together of 2 people when they also believe God has said through his word that he disproves of such a connection.You don't get to be against same sex marriage and in support of the LGBT+ community. That's not a thing.
These are not different groups of people.I think it becomes a more complex issue for hard-core Christians. I'm not talking about the idiots that use Christianity as a reason to spread hate everywhere and use it as a weapon. I mean proper theological Christians who try to practise what the bible says.
They are in countries that are not the US. I know this because my Mum and Dad are them.
I'm not going to ask you to acknowledge the bigotry exhibited by your parents, but again, they are not different groups of people.They are in countries that are not the US. I know this because my Mum and Dad are them.
Yes they are, you are actually being fairly hypocritical in your lack of understanding on this one tbhI'm not going to ask you to acknowledge the bigotry exhibited by your parents, but again, they are not different groups of people.
The important aspect here that the bakery didn't refuse to serve the customers but "support gay marriage" is a political statement. And private businesses should indeed be able to refuse to participate in political matters.
Even it wasn't the morally correct thing to do in my eyes
For the love of god HOW is "can gay people have equal rights" just a political disagreement to you? Do you realize that "can I refuse someone service because they're black" was once a political disagreement?The important aspect here that the bakery didn't refuse to serve the customers but "support gay marriage" is a political statement. And private businesses should indeed be able to refuse to participate in political matters.
Even it wasn't the morally correct thing to do in my eyes
Bigots are bigots even outside of America, believe it or not.
No? If the bakery had refused to serve gay people it would fall under anti discrimination laws.
bigot
That's not how language works. If you've started linking to dictionary definitions, you're probably not in a very good position.bigot
ˈbɪɡət/
noun
Do you see the irony yet?
- a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
For the love of god HOW is "can gay people have equal rights" just a political disagreement to you? Do you realize that "can I refuse someone service because they're black" was once a political disagreement?
How so? You are generalizing an entire group of people and essentially dismissing the entire group as intolerant of LBGT+ I am telling you I have a different experience and understand that the situation is more nuanced than you are making out.That's not how language works. If you've started linking to dictionary definitions, you're probably not in a very good position.
bigot
ˈbɪɡət/
noun
Do you see the irony yet?
- a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
I think the obvious implication here is that "political beliefs" in this context refers to something that doesn't violate basic human rights.That is still a political belief. A belief doesn't stop becoming political once it becomes the majority.
How would you define a political belief?
Im saying that calling all Christians out as hate spreading bigots who weaponise their religion without understanding that such a sentiment doesn't apply to the entirety of christians is in itself a bigoted viewpoint.
bigot
ˈbɪɡət/
noun
Do you see the irony yet?
- a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
I am going to assume that you're Catholic and support sinn fein.The armed forces of the UK murdered it's own citizens in Derry and Belfast.
There are monuments to kids murdered by the Protestant RUC with plastic bullets (I do mean kids), some of that old police force are still in the reformed PSNi.
Am I allowed to refuse service to soldiers, police, people wearing poppies?
Or can we put that in the past and realise that social justice issues bear no relation to the troubles and that a group with clear issues with bigotry are simply bigots and gay marriage is not a political issue.
Is straight marriage a political construct or a personal matter between two people, like it is for gay people and a moral issue with regards to whether you support or oppose it.
It's simple bigotry.
Sorry I was just trying to be obtuse by pointing out that sugarnoodles post was also a display of bigotry. I don't want to derail further. They should just have baked the fucking cake.
Sorry I was just trying to be obtuse by pointing out that sugarnoodles post was also a display of bigotry. I don't want to derail further. They should just have baked the fucking cake.
I am going to assume that you're Catholic and support sinn fein.
Would I be correct?
this thread seems to have careened off from the posts ive seen.
IMO
I see two things
- baker said he can make another cake
- baker said he wont do the line the customer wanted
Now to me it comes down to do you consider support gay marriage as a human right or a political view. I consider it a human right.
I would say the baker should do it.
I would also say any baker democratic in the us should also do a MAGA 2020 cake if asked to. One is politics one is human rights. Thats my opinion.
Yeah this is what I agree with.I think everyone in this thread is probably in agreement that that baker SHOULD do it. They obviously should do it, they are obviously homophobic, which isn't cool.
The issue though is whether the baker should be FORCED to do it and in my opinion no they should not.
No it doesn't. Abortion is a political view. Gay people should not have equal rights is not a political view.
Only the DUP would deny what that user posted. No lies.I am going to assume that you're Catholic and support sinn fein.
Would I be correct?
Being gay isn't the same as holding a controversial faith-based point of view. It's a matter of respecting basic humanity vs enabling an evidence-free opinion.This works both ways.
If a person who's catholic and asks an atheist baker to make a cake that says "god says abortion is murder" and the baker doesnt want to make that cake because he disagrees with the message, then he shouldnt be forced to.
Religious beliefs are protected. I think hardly anyone here would agree if that person claimed discrimination because of religious beliefs and the baker should be forced to make the cake.
Yep. I don't like the bakers and think their opinions are horrible, but I agree with this ruling.I think everyone in this thread is probably in agreement that that baker SHOULD do it. They obviously should do it, they are obviously homophobic, which isn't cool.
The issue though is whether the baker should be FORCED to do it and in my opinion no they should not.
Where's the crucial difference between a baker saying "Sorry, we don't serve little black girls because natural law dictates you're twice inferior" and "Sorry, gay perverts are a mockery of real love so you need to get out"?I think everyone in this thread is probably in agreement that that baker SHOULD do it. They obviously should do it, they are obviously homophobic, which isn't cool.
The issue though is whether the baker should be FORCED to do it and in my opinion no they should not.
Where's the crucial difference between a baker saying "Sorry, we don't serve little black girls because natural law dictates you're twice inferior" and "Sorry, gay perverts are a mockery of real love so you need to get out"?