Not me. Especially (but not exclusively) if it had been an anti-gay message.
There are certain things that are blatantly unfair and deserve the full force of the criminal law to oppose. Some other things - not so much.
I was answering a specific example, there's nothing inherently harmful about a cross, likewise, there's nothing inherently harmful about the message, support gay marriage.
If feel differently if either message was harmful.....
I believe that if you have a spiritual calling (which can be from childhood or later on - it doesn't matter) you will want to follow it, in the same way that if you have sexual attraction (Which can be born or come later as part of nurture) then you will want to follow it. Both can be fluid.
It's just too convenient to say one's a choice and one isn't and that's black and white for every single person on the planet.
I think we had better agree to disagree as this is seriously off topic. Maybe we can pick up the debate when one of the inevitable religious threads rolls around
I think we had better agree to disagree as this is seriously off topic. Maybe we can pick up the debate when one of the inevitable religious threads rolls around
Fair enough! I'll wait for a day when I've got a good few hours to spare. ;-)
It's a date - be nice to have a solid debate that probably won't mention 'sky-fairies' once
We'll give it a go - I'll make some cakes for the occasion !
Anyway, back to the topic, my thought is that any discrimination is wrong and of course religious beliefs should not be used as an excuse. However, this is a particular political statement that they're objecting to. They're douchebags for not doing it but should have the right IMO. Interesting as to what the courts do say.
We'll give it a go - I'll make some cakes for the occasion !
Anyway, back to the topic, my thought is that any discrimination is wrong and of course religious beliefs should not be used as an excuse. However, this is a particular political statement that they're objecting to. They're douchebags for not doing it but should have the right IMO. Interesting as to what the courts do say.
It will be interesting to see, yes. The Equalities Commission seem certain enough but I would like to see how they classify it as unlawful discrimination. I can only think it is because it is a form of indirect discrimination, but it will need a ruling by a court. That's a good thing in my view, because whichever way it goes (and because the Christian Institute is involved they will take it to the Supreme Court if needed) it will clarify the position and service providers and users will know where they stand.
I was answering a specific example, there's nothing inherently harmful about a cross, likewise, there's nothing inherently harmful about the message, support gay marriage.
If feel differently if either message was harmful.....
That's because you support equality, but bigotry should not be enshrined in law either.
Except that people on benefits don't get discount in shops do they? Certainly not in my experience. Can you name any?
They offer discounts to those who CHOOSE to be a student. Their choice to lead that lifestyle so why should they be entitled to a discount? They offer discounts to OAPs who have already earned their living, saved for their old age and most probably have a guaranteed income from their pension. You say they have less money but probably far more than someone who's just lost their job. Yet never have I seen shops that offer discount to people who of no fault of their own have been made I employed. I'd say that was pretty discriminative.
People on benefits do get discounts for dental treatment, prescriptions and some local authorities offer discounts to use sports amenities for people on benefits. Adult education is also discounted.
Students are often a boost to the local economy because they move to be near their university so shops often have discounts for students to entice them to spend their money locally. Shops would not have the same incentive to draw in the unemployed because they have so little money to live on.
I think the equal opportunities people and the gay activist are wrong. The shop never refused to serve the gay customer, they simply refused to produce a specific product on religious grounds.
What if a Nazi asked for a cake with a swastika on it, would they be forced to make that by the equal opportunities people?
Refusing to provide a service you provide for others is one thing, refusing to produce a specific product is entirely at the discretion of the owners of the business.
It sounds to me like this gay activist is just looking for trouble and thought he would try and get a religious business prosecuted. Probably part of some campaign or something.
Although probably a minority group, I dont think equal opportunities legislation stretches as far as Nazis
Really? right back at you. If homosexuality were shown to have an element of choice (and, let's not forget, it has not been proven to be outside the choice of the individual concerned), would you immediately call for the reversal of the current legislation against discrimination against gay folk? I would certainly hope not.
If being gay was a choice then surely all the different sexualites are a choice. Tell me Trsvis, at what age did you weigh up the pros and cons and decide to become heterosexual. What tipped it for you?
Of course it cuts both ways. I would fully support the baker in such a case ( I assume you are referring to an anti-gay message).
Of course, the funny thing is that we never see the tables turned in the way that you suggest, do we? I wonder why that is.
Err no.....the cake decoration in the case was pro gay, not anti christian so in the analogy the message would be pro christian not anti gay. So if a Christian approached a baker who was gay and asked for a pro Christian slogan and the baker refused because he was gay would you support the baker or the Christian?
This piece of inane PC crap is why I so wish I could opt out of modern day society and all its pandering, simpering knee-bending to screaming minorities. .
We agree....I too wish you'd opt out of modern day society.
That's because you support equality, but bigotry should not be enshrined in law either.
Umm..I was only responding because you said that most people who supported the individual who ordered the cake on behalf of the organisation wouldn't also back a Christian who ordered a cake with a cross and was refused by a gay baker...and I said I'd support the Christian in that specific instance...so I'm not really sure where you're trying to go with this post.
No you didn't. You've just copied and pasted it from a link. Bit of a misleading URL by the way - I thought it was referring to a day celebrating 'homophobia':o.
The 'heart of the problem' is that you are just repeating stuff you've seen on the interspaz and refuse to actually engage with either the topic at hand (a petty squabble between two equally daft parties) or the things that people are actually talking about.
No the reality is firstly you do not understand the concept of equality and secondly you attempt to try and belittle other posters who don`t share your views.
That is not a misleading URL either its the valid definition of the manifestations of homophobia something again you`d rather deny of course.
I have worked for the police in the past and I know the law rather well so don`t go attempting to tell me what I should and should not know.
As I said before your ideology is about enshrining bigotry In law, mine on the other hand is about equality , so you can be as smug as you like it will not get you anywhere with me.
Do you seriously think I am not used to individuals bending the truth or twisting the truth to suit their own agenda or attempting to point score in a desperate attempt to avoid answering the questions I put to you?
People like yourself hate the truth and instead of providing logical answers to valid questions all you do is attempt to mock and goad so the other person gets banned, its not going to work sunshine.
You have failed to answer the main questions put to you, and all you do instead of reply in a decent manner is attempt to belittle and insult rather than have a proper logical debate.
There is no debate with you because someone like you with your views is not going to change or grasp anything, and for your information I am not going to change my views and belief in equality to suit you or any anyone else for that matter.
I have already made it clear like many others in the thread why views like yours and others are wrong but people like yourselves continue to bring out the same old nonsense every single time , its tedious and boring my friend to keep going around in circles about the same flipping things its like talking to a flipping brick wall.
So you continue to advocate prejudice enshrined in law and I`ll continue to advocate equality enshrined in law, that solves that!
I believe that if you have a spiritual calling (which can be from childhood or later on - it doesn't matter) you will want to follow it, in the same way that if you have sexual attraction (Which can be born or come later as part of nurture) then you will want to follow it. Both can be fluid.
It's just too convenient to say one's a choice and one isn't and that's black and white for every single person on the planet.
Surely a 'spiritual calling' would not define the religion later chosen and if there were anything spiritual this calling why would the chosen religion be one which discriminates against women and people who are gay.
Even if your view could be taken seriously what happens to the spiritual calling of people who are gay when the calling takes them into a religion which does not accept their being gay?
Umm..I was only responding because you said that most people who supported the individual who ordered the cake on behalf of the organisation wouldn't also back a Christian who ordered a cake with a cross and was refused by a gay baker...and I said I'd support the Christian in that specific instance...so I'm not really sure where you're trying to go with this post.
I was aware a few would be against discrimination on either ground be it religious discrimination or discrimination based on sexual orientation, The point I was making is the majority currently who appear to staunchly defend the right of the baker most likely would not do so if it were the other way around.
The baker is at fault IMO, he stupidly let his personal feelings get in the way of his business (which is a separate legal entity). If you're not comfortable making it fine, they should have just asked a staff member who didn't mind making the cake to do it. I'm assuming at least some of the staff in their chain of stores don't have dark age views on sexuality or at least have the professionalism to not let it affect their job.
Yes the very fact there is even a thread about homosexual equality and rights does suggest there is still a real problem.
The very fact its still a topic of discussion in 2014 suggests there is still a problem because if there wasn`t a problem there would be no discussion surrounding homosexual equality in the first place, people would just see homosexuals as deserving the same rights as themselves without question.
But the very fact that the very existence of homosexual equality and to a degree female equality is still debated with a negative stance suggests there is still a long way to go socially speaking.
I long for the day when both genders are legally and socially equal to one another and when all races and sexual orientations are the same but I`m a realist and I realise as long as there are still obstacles within society, equality will always take a backseat and be viewed as being something morally wrong rather than being viewed for what it is.
Its a sad state of affairs that in 2014 sexuality and equal gender rights are still topics of discussion and negativity, lets hope the next generations are more enlightened through the struggles of those today fighting for a better future for all.
The baker is at fault IMO, he stupidly let his personal feelings get in the way of his business (which is a separate legal entity). If you're not comfortable making it fine, they should have just asked a staff member who didn't mind making the cake to do it. I'm assuming at least some of the staff in their chain of stores don't have dark age views on sexuality or at least have the professionalism to not let it affect their job.
This post is pure logic and common sense, absolutely brilliant.
Noone has been discriminated against because of their sexuality as gay marriage isn't a person, it is an idea or a moral stance and you do not have to be gay to support it or hate gay people to oppose it as some gay are opposed to it and i dont believe they hate themselves.
It is no different than someone going to a baker and asking for a cake with a slogan supporting Israel
If you refused to make it you aren't discriminating against Jewish people as you don't have to be Jewish to support it. A lot of Jewish people might agree with it, some don't.
If a company shouldn't take a moral stance on something is it wrong for the co-op to boycott goods from israel?
The very fact that homosexual equal rights still prompt such discussion and topic in Britain in 2014 clearly says there is still a problem.
I think its still discussed as it is perpetuated by some because they enjoy the equality (specialness) debate. Most people see this as a petty squabble, the scale of which occurs everyday in our equal society and normally people resolve in there own way. Others see it as the continuing struggle of gays who are still persecuted in the same way they were 60 years ago. I think some do this because they are activists and that is what they do. If they werent then what else would they do with their lives.
Comments
I was answering a specific example, there's nothing inherently harmful about a cross, likewise, there's nothing inherently harmful about the message, support gay marriage.
If feel differently if either message was harmful.....
I think we had better agree to disagree as this is seriously off topic. Maybe we can pick up the debate when one of the inevitable religious threads rolls around
Fair enough! I'll wait for a day when I've got a good few hours to spare. ;-)
It's a date - be nice to have a solid debate that probably won't mention 'sky-fairies' once
We'll give it a go - I'll make some cakes for the occasion
Anyway, back to the topic, my thought is that any discrimination is wrong and of course religious beliefs should not be used as an excuse. However, this is a particular political statement that they're objecting to. They're douchebags for not doing it but should have the right IMO. Interesting as to what the courts do say.
It will be interesting to see, yes. The Equalities Commission seem certain enough but I would like to see how they classify it as unlawful discrimination. I can only think it is because it is a form of indirect discrimination, but it will need a ruling by a court. That's a good thing in my view, because whichever way it goes (and because the Christian Institute is involved they will take it to the Supreme Court if needed) it will clarify the position and service providers and users will know where they stand.
That's because you support equality, but bigotry should not be enshrined in law either.
People on benefits do get discounts for dental treatment, prescriptions and some local authorities offer discounts to use sports amenities for people on benefits. Adult education is also discounted.
Students are often a boost to the local economy because they move to be near their university so shops often have discounts for students to entice them to spend their money locally. Shops would not have the same incentive to draw in the unemployed because they have so little money to live on.
Although probably a minority group, I dont think equal opportunities legislation stretches as far as Nazis
If being gay was a choice then surely all the different sexualites are a choice. Tell me Trsvis, at what age did you weigh up the pros and cons and decide to become heterosexual. What tipped it for you?
Err no.....the cake decoration in the case was pro gay, not anti christian so in the analogy the message would be pro christian not anti gay. So if a Christian approached a baker who was gay and asked for a pro Christian slogan and the baker refused because he was gay would you support the baker or the Christian?
We agree....I too wish you'd opt out of modern day society.
Umm..I was only responding because you said that most people who supported the individual who ordered the cake on behalf of the organisation wouldn't also back a Christian who ordered a cake with a cross and was refused by a gay baker...and I said I'd support the Christian in that specific instance...so I'm not really sure where you're trying to go with this post.
No the reality is firstly you do not understand the concept of equality and secondly you attempt to try and belittle other posters who don`t share your views.
That is not a misleading URL either its the valid definition of the manifestations of homophobia something again you`d rather deny of course.
I have worked for the police in the past and I know the law rather well so don`t go attempting to tell me what I should and should not know.
As I said before your ideology is about enshrining bigotry In law, mine on the other hand is about equality , so you can be as smug as you like it will not get you anywhere with me.
Do you seriously think I am not used to individuals bending the truth or twisting the truth to suit their own agenda or attempting to point score in a desperate attempt to avoid answering the questions I put to you?
People like yourself hate the truth and instead of providing logical answers to valid questions all you do is attempt to mock and goad so the other person gets banned, its not going to work sunshine.
You have failed to answer the main questions put to you, and all you do instead of reply in a decent manner is attempt to belittle and insult rather than have a proper logical debate.
There is no debate with you because someone like you with your views is not going to change or grasp anything, and for your information I am not going to change my views and belief in equality to suit you or any anyone else for that matter.
I have already made it clear like many others in the thread why views like yours and others are wrong but people like yourselves continue to bring out the same old nonsense every single time , its tedious and boring my friend to keep going around in circles about the same flipping things its like talking to a flipping brick wall.
So you continue to advocate prejudice enshrined in law and I`ll continue to advocate equality enshrined in law, that solves that!
Surely a 'spiritual calling' would not define the religion later chosen and if there were anything spiritual this calling why would the chosen religion be one which discriminates against women and people who are gay.
Even if your view could be taken seriously what happens to the spiritual calling of people who are gay when the calling takes them into a religion which does not accept their being gay?
I was aware a few would be against discrimination on either ground be it religious discrimination or discrimination based on sexual orientation, The point I was making is the majority currently who appear to staunchly defend the right of the baker most likely would not do so if it were the other way around.
This thread says there is still a problem.
Oh and some great posting doop
Yes the very fact there is even a thread about homosexual equality and rights does suggest there is still a real problem.
The very fact its still a topic of discussion in 2014 suggests there is still a problem because if there wasn`t a problem there would be no discussion surrounding homosexual equality in the first place, people would just see homosexuals as deserving the same rights as themselves without question.
But the very fact that the very existence of homosexual equality and to a degree female equality is still debated with a negative stance suggests there is still a long way to go socially speaking.
I long for the day when both genders are legally and socially equal to one another and when all races and sexual orientations are the same but I`m a realist and I realise as long as there are still obstacles within society, equality will always take a backseat and be viewed as being something morally wrong rather than being viewed for what it is.
Its a sad state of affairs that in 2014 sexuality and equal gender rights are still topics of discussion and negativity, lets hope the next generations are more enlightened through the struggles of those today fighting for a better future for all.
This post is pure logic and common sense, absolutely brilliant.
More like ... He blindly let his religious beliefs.
You're right, though. Straight out of the dark ages.
Most people who make cakes for a living regard themselves as artists. They want to create things they are proud of.
It is no different than someone going to a baker and asking for a cake with a slogan supporting Israel
If you refused to make it you aren't discriminating against Jewish people as you don't have to be Jewish to support it. A lot of Jewish people might agree with it, some don't.
If a company shouldn't take a moral stance on something is it wrong for the co-op to boycott goods from israel?
I think its still discussed as it is perpetuated by some because they enjoy the equality (specialness) debate. Most people see this as a petty squabble, the scale of which occurs everyday in our equal society and normally people resolve in there own way. Others see it as the continuing struggle of gays who are still persecuted in the same way they were 60 years ago. I think some do this because they are activists and that is what they do. If they werent then what else would they do with their lives.