I wasn't aware that copyright infringements were based on the perpetrator arbitrarily deciding whether or not the image owner 'would mind' if it was used.
As to your second point, civil partnerships offer exactly the same legal impact of marriage. Hence I can't understand why a couple would seek, to the point of changing the law, the blessing of an organisation that doesn't agree with what they are doing.
Now, I agree that many heterosexual people hypocritically get married in front of an organisation that they know little about. However, they do have to conform to the 'rules' of that organisation to receive it's blessing.
Like how if myself and my partner weren't Jewish or Muslim, we couldn't be married in their places of worship. That seems fair to me.
So you have gay couples marrying in a church, having their relationship blessed by a religion that disagrees with their union and where the people seeking the blessing, have contempt for the body blessing them.
It really is saying "I don't want their approval, I don't respect their approval and I am fully aware that they don't want to give their approval but it's my right to demand it regardless'.
It all seems a little petulant and kind of going against the wonder of partnerships, namely that it's meant to be between two people and shouldn't really require an external title to give it validation.
Why are you solely focussed on Church marriage?
Apart from anything else no Church can be forced to marry anyone, if they disagree with anything. You don't agree that any Christian is entitled to a religious ceremony? Thankfully there are Christian churches which disagree, especially as Christ never condemned homosexuality or said same sex marriage was wrong.
You don't agree that homosexuals should have equal rights, they should not be allowed to marry and be kept apart from heterosexual human rights? Equal rights were denied to mixed marriages, do you think that also should have been preserved?
And yet again, they completely failed to state 1. How they know it to be the case. and 2. Provide any evidence at all to prove that there is a God to do right by.
And so the religious carry on and on and on without a clue as to why more and more people are just not taking them seriously any longer.
Was it actually to be a gay cake or just pie-curious?
Probably a fairy cake.
Disclaimer: the above post was intended as an attempt at humerous wordplay and should not be construed as promoting homophobia or intended to cause offence to those with a terminal sense of humour deficit.
If someone went into a gay bakery and asked them to decorate a cake with Leviticus 18 on it , what would they do.?
That would have to be a big cake.
What you would have to decide is whether refusing would constitute discrimination because of the religious beliefs of the orderer, against whether the message constitutes an attack on a protected characteristic. You couldn't, for example, put 'kill the gays' on a cake. So I might argue that, as Leviticus 20 (which deals with the sentencing for such crimes), says that stoning is the required punishment, that it could be viewed as a hate message and therefore can be lawfully refused.
However, I would be fine with putting "Oppose Gay Marriage" on a cake.
Disclaimer: the above post was intended as an attempt at humerous wordplay and should not be construed as promoting homophobia or intended to cause offence to those with a terminal sense of humour deficit.
And yet again, they completely failed to state 1. How they know it to be the case. and 2. Provide any evidence at all to prove that there is a God to do right by.
And so the religious carry on and on and on without a clue as to why more and more people are just not taking them seriously any longer.
Poor old God. Up there minding his own business and he gets the blame for every bit of man made, convenient personal agenda chosen religious bigotry on earth. How does he deal with the wicked Ashers selling to sinful divorcees and every other damn thing they choose to ignore in their laughable cherrypicking fest.
What you would have to decide is whether refusing would constitute discrimination because of the religious beliefs of the orderer, against whether the message constitutes an attack on a protected characteristic. You couldn't, for example, put 'kill the gays' on a cake. So I might argue that, as Leviticus 20 (which deals with the sentencing for such crimes), says that stoning is the required punishment, that it could be viewed as a hate message and therefore can be lawfully refused.
However, I would be fine with putting "Oppose Gay Marriage" on a cake.
James May once asserted that there really only needs to be one law; "Are you being an arse?"
Stuff like this seems to be a good example of how that concept has merit.
Gay couple seeks to have cake made. Are they being arses? Nope. Okay then.
Cake maker refuses to make cake. Is he being an arse? Hmm, maybe not deliberately but yes. So, he doesn't get his way.
Somebody seeks to have cake made with "Kill all gays" on it. Is that being an arse? Unquestionably.
Seems like the law can actually be pretty simple if we allow a bit of common-sense to be applied.
Poor old God. Gets the blame for every bit of conveniently chosen religious bigotry on earth. How does he deal with the wicked Ashers selling to sinful divorcees and every other damn thing they choose to ignore in their laughable cherrypicking fest.
Spot on......religion is just an excuse for simple minded people to express there self rightous bigotry.
I wonder if he will now try for the same cake at a muslim run bakery?
No chance...they wouldn't even try it on with a Muslim bakery. Targeting Christian businesses is a soft option and this isn't the first time.
Mr Lee would do well to follow the example of Matt Stolhandske, who set up a donation fund to help a couple faced with losing their business after being hit with $150k in fine because they wouldn't bake a cake for a lesbian wedding.
Matt Stolhandske is a Christian......who is also gay.
James May once asserted that there really only needs to be one law; "Are you being an arse?"
Stuff like this seems to be a good example of how that concept has merit.
Gay couple seeks to have cake made. Are they being arses? Nope. Okay then.
Cake maker refuses to make cake. Is he being an arse? Hmm, maybe not deliberately but yes. So, he doesn't get his way.
Somebody seeks to have cake made with "Kill all gays" on it. Is that being an arse? Unquestionably.
Seems like the law can actually be pretty simple if we allow a bit of common-sense to be applied.
Problem comes when people believe that god told them to be an arse though. Apparently it is ok to be as arsey as you want if you select the right bits from religious texts. I might start a campaign to imprison those who wear polyester cotton.
No chance...they wouldn't even try it on with a Muslim bakery. Targeting Christian businesses is a soft option and this isn't the first time.
Mr Lee would do well to follow the example of Matt Stolhandske, who set up a donation fund to help a couple faced with losing their business after being hit with $150k in fine because they wouldn't bake a cake for a lesbian wedding.
Matt Stolhandske is a Christian......who is also gay.
No chance...they wouldn't even try it on with a Muslim bakery. Targeting Christian businesses is a soft option and this isn't the first time.
But there is no evidence whatsoever that Christian businesses are being targeted. However such businesses do seem more likely to discriminate against gay people.
Comments
It does have civil partnerships.
Why are you solely focussed on Church marriage?
Apart from anything else no Church can be forced to marry anyone, if they disagree with anything. You don't agree that any Christian is entitled to a religious ceremony? Thankfully there are Christian churches which disagree, especially as Christ never condemned homosexuality or said same sex marriage was wrong.
You don't agree that homosexuals should have equal rights, they should not be allowed to marry and be kept apart from heterosexual human rights? Equal rights were denied to mixed marriages, do you think that also should have been preserved?
Yes and I've replied
Why is that such an important issue to you?
And yet again, they completely failed to state 1. How they know it to be the case. and 2. Provide any evidence at all to prove that there is a God to do right by.
And so the religious carry on and on and on without a clue as to why more and more people are just not taking them seriously any longer.
HAAAAAAAAA!
A gay joke that is actually funny!
if the cake makers were muslim would the case have been brought?
if the cake makers were black christians would the case have been brought?
if the cake makers were disabled christians would the case have been brought?
I think I know what would have happened
Probably a fairy cake.
Disclaimer: the above post was intended as an attempt at humerous wordplay and should not be construed as promoting homophobia or intended to cause offence to those with a terminal sense of humour deficit.
That would have to be a big cake.
What you would have to decide is whether refusing would constitute discrimination because of the religious beliefs of the orderer, against whether the message constitutes an attack on a protected characteristic. You couldn't, for example, put 'kill the gays' on a cake. So I might argue that, as Leviticus 20 (which deals with the sentencing for such crimes), says that stoning is the required punishment, that it could be viewed as a hate message and therefore can be lawfully refused.
However, I would be fine with putting "Oppose Gay Marriage" on a cake.
Sorry Si, but it excludes lesbians - shocking.
I am going to steal that.
Poor old God. Up there minding his own business and he gets the blame for every bit of man made, convenient personal agenda chosen religious bigotry on earth. How does he deal with the wicked Ashers selling to sinful divorcees and every other damn thing they choose to ignore in their laughable cherrypicking fest.
No reason why the outcome would have been any different. And it has nothing to do with "PC".
It's just a bakery, the religious beliefs of its owners should be irrelevant.
James May once asserted that there really only needs to be one law; "Are you being an arse?"
Stuff like this seems to be a good example of how that concept has merit.
Gay couple seeks to have cake made. Are they being arses? Nope. Okay then.
Cake maker refuses to make cake. Is he being an arse? Hmm, maybe not deliberately but yes. So, he doesn't get his way.
Somebody seeks to have cake made with "Kill all gays" on it. Is that being an arse? Unquestionably.
Seems like the law can actually be pretty simple if we allow a bit of common-sense to be applied.
Spot on......religion is just an excuse for simple minded people to express there self rightous bigotry.
Mr Lee would do well to follow the example of Matt Stolhandske, who set up a donation fund to help a couple faced with losing their business after being hit with $150k in fine because they wouldn't bake a cake for a lesbian wedding.
Matt Stolhandske is a Christian......who is also gay.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-advocate-raises-money-to-help-christian-bakers-pay-150k-fine-for-refusing-to-bake-cake-for-lesbian-wedding-128479/
Help y'self!
Problem comes when people believe that god told them to be an arse though. Apparently it is ok to be as arsey as you want if you select the right bits from religious texts. I might start a campaign to imprison those who wear polyester cotton.
You say that as if it matters... gay people hold all sorts of views, we are not the Borg.
As for a Muslim bakery - damn right I would take action against them.. why on Earth wouldn't I?
http://www.ashersbakingco.com/about/
They don't advertise or give any indication that they are a "Christian Bakery".
I also have no idea what the description would infer or why it would be needed.
But there is no evidence whatsoever that Christian businesses are being targeted. However such businesses do seem more likely to discriminate against gay people.