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:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Northern Ireland "Gay Cake" case - Supreme Court sides with bakery
- Thread starter Pankratous
- Start date
Businesses are definitely private property. That's why it's so hard to get cops to come out to parking lot accidents.
So, what? So much red tape may as well let them discriminate? You know what I mean.
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.
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.
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.
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.
as has rightly been the case for a while, religious beliefs are as protected as they are benign.
the acceptability of the baker's stance needs to be determined solely through a demonstration of its own merit.
Then to be blunt you are quite insane. That has never happened anywhere to date, there's no evidence of it happening here, and you're just ascribing malice to some people who wanted a ducking cake made for them. I am impressed how you turned some homophobic bigots into the victims, from those evil gay activists.
I tend to agree with this court ruling, but that doesn't stop the above opinion being completely moronic and a complete work of fiction.
No it doesn't. Abortion is a political view. Gay people should not have equal rights is not a political view.
Coming from an uber religious family I kind of understand the bakers here. I think it's the marriage bit they disagree with rather than support for LBGT+ community. Especially in Northern Ireland where religion is practised to the letter marriage is seen as 2 people joined by God in holy matrimony. In these folks eyes God wouldn't approve of same sex marriage as there are passages in the bible which are against gay relationships.
This isn't me agreeing with what they have done, far from it, I'm just saying I understand why they refused so vehemently. I know my Dad would have done the same thing, but we've argued about this before.
This isn't me agreeing with what they have done, far from it, I'm just saying I understand why they refused so vehemently. I know my Dad would have done the same thing, but we've argued about this before.
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 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.
Again please let me iterate that these are not my views, I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of the bakers and I'm saying I kind of understand why they did what they did.
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.
Asher's was supported by the DUP in their fight, a party who has said and done things like:
Or after the original Asher's bakery finding on Northern Ireland courts
Don't kid yourself, bigotry is behind this stuff.
These people stand in the way of my family members who are gay from having the same rights as me.
More reading on the people behind this Christian right wing nonsense;
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....ts-web-of-influence-at-stormont-28787760.html
Or after the original Asher's bakery finding on Northern Ireland courts
Don't kid yourself, bigotry is behind this stuff.
These people stand in the way of my family members who are gay from having the same rights as me.
More reading on the people behind this Christian right wing nonsense;
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....ts-web-of-influence-at-stormont-28787760.html
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
Even it wasn't the morally correct thing to do in my eyes
Yes they are, you are actually being fairly hypocritical in your lack of understanding on this one tbh
It's ok for a business to be anti-gay?
What if they refused to make a cake promoting anti-racist sentiments etc?
It is a slippery slope, in a bad direction.
Ethically I can see how a person wouldn't want to print something that they don't agree with.
In the case of a cake, though, doesn't the cake go in a box to the customer and then the customer presumably eats it with a bunch of like minded people? Is it likely that the baker is going to be associated with the cake in a way that allows people not directly involved to hear about it?
In the case of a cake, though, doesn't the cake go in a box to the customer and then the customer presumably eats it with a bunch of like minded people? Is it likely that the baker is going to be associated with the cake in a way that allows people not directly involved to hear about it?
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?
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.
Any business should be able to refuse anybody for any reason imo. And then said business could deal with the consequences of that decision.
In this case in particular its clearly homophobic, and I hope they lose business because of it.
To see the courts ruling you'd have to change it to something you are against, like a cake celebrating Trump or Kavanaugh or nazis or whatever it may be.
Would you be OK making someone a Trump 2020 cake or drawing some swastika decorations? I personally would not, and would like to maintain the right to refuse them.
With that said, I think there are anti discrimination laws that would normally force the business to comply? If that is the case I'm having a hard time seeing how this particular case is not discrimination.
Edit: OK on rereading the OP it sounds like the message is political. What if the cake had said something non political but still used the words gay marriage? By law the cake makers would have had to comply? What if it had just said "Gay and married and happy" for example?
In this case in particular its clearly homophobic, and I hope they lose business because of it.
To see the courts ruling you'd have to change it to something you are against, like a cake celebrating Trump or Kavanaugh or nazis or whatever it may be.
Would you be OK making someone a Trump 2020 cake or drawing some swastika decorations? I personally would not, and would like to maintain the right to refuse them.
With that said, I think there are anti discrimination laws that would normally force the business to comply? If that is the case I'm having a hard time seeing how this particular case is not discrimination.
Edit: OK on rereading the OP it sounds like the message is political. What if the cake had said something non political but still used the words gay marriage? By law the cake makers would have had to comply? What if it had just said "Gay and married and happy" for example?
Last edited:
bigot
ˈbɪɡət/
noun
- a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
That's not how language works. If you've started linking to dictionary definitions, you're probably not in a very good position.
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?
You can't force people to participate in political matters.
As long they didn't deny to provide services to gay people, that's the crucial point.
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.
Your position, ironically is one of bigotry as you are showing a complete intolerance of all Christians and refusing to believe that Christian!= anti gay.
I'm in a fine position thank you.
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.
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.
I think the obvious implication here is that "political beliefs" in this context refers to something that doesn't violate basic human rights.
Obviously you can call "Be a Nazi and kill all Jews" a political view. It's obviously not one that needs to be legitimized by framing it as a "difference of opinion"
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.
Anyway I am not looking for an argument, I think the bakers world view is wrong, i just wanted to share perspective and say I understand why they did what they did. I don't think it is out of hatred for the LBGT+ community but more out of devotion to their religion. The 2 things are not synonymous.
I am going to assume that you're Catholic and support sinn fein.
Would I be correct?
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.
There is no bigotry in not accepting discrimination on the basis of "religious devotion".
In fact, there's no Christian based faith that accepts homosexuality. So if a Christian is so "devout" to the scripture, then they are by default homophobic.
And that's not even going into the messed up things living in a religious environment does to LGBT youths.
Nope, raised Catholic but don't believe in God.
Don't support Sinn Fein.
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.
Worth noting - The order was taken by Karen McArthur, one of the directors of Ashers.
I'd honestly suspect that she genuinely had no issue, which is why she took the order. However, once her son, Daniel McArthur, found out about it that's where the issue really occured. If it's a deep held religious belief, why take the order in the first place? If you're trying to avoid confrontation, why let it build up to a £500,000 court case?
I'd honestly suspect that she genuinely had no issue, which is why she took the order. However, once her son, Daniel McArthur, found out about it that's where the issue really occured. If it's a deep held religious belief, why take the order in the first place? If you're trying to avoid confrontation, why let it build up to a £500,000 court case?
To you its a political view. To the Catholic Church, it's a religious belief. I don't see how this is even in dispute.
If a woman asks a catholic bakery to make a cake that says "pro life is wrong" and the bakery refuses, is the bakery refusing because she is a woman or because they don't agree with the message? Clearly, abortion is a right that only women possess. By refusing, is the bakery saying women do not deserve this right?
This is the argument you appear to be making - gay people are a protected class; gay people have the right to marry; by refusing to make a cake that supports gay marriage the implication is the baker is saying gay people do not deserve the right to marry therefore discriminating against a protected class.
Like I said, it goes both ways.
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.
Human dignity isn't open to negotiation. That's a foundational tenet of civilization. Refusing to bake a cake for gay people because you "disagree" with their core humanity shouldn't be a legally defensible option.
The government should apply the exact same reasoning they'd use to forbid gender- or race-based discrimination. If you own a business that's open to the public, you don't get to decide when and if you'll respect your customers' rights.
Yep. I don't like the bakers and think their opinions are horrible, but I agree with this ruling.
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"?
Discrimination is discrimination. Part of the package deal of enjoying the benefits of society is you don't get to pick and choose who to treat like a human.
God forbid antisocial assholes who didn't develop a bare minimum of empathy or tolerance be "forced" to behave as though they are civilized while they exchange public services for the public's money.
If they don't want to play by those rules, they can always find a new profession, like writing bigoted articles or something.
Last edited:
This isn't what happened. They didn't tell a gay person to get out. They refused to bake a cake. I'm open to correction but I've seen nothing to suggest they bar gay people from their bakery.