Rincewind Posted 11 July 2014 Posted 11 July 2014 not sure if its all down to liberal gone mad. I'm cynale too about the reasons for bringing it to the publics notice. No doubt there is a lawyer around somewhere wringing his hands at the prospect of making a fat profit. The majority of liberal gays would have shrugged their shoulders and moved on. I wonder how many previous orders with bakers there have been that was turned away but did not make the news? I wish the media would concentrate on news that affect real people instead of the odd couple here and there.
davieG Posted 11 July 2014 Posted 11 July 2014 not sure if its all down to liberal gone mad. I'm cynale too about the reasons for bringing it to the publics notice. No doubt there is a lawyer around somewhere wringing his hands at the prospect of making a fat profit. The majority of liberal gays would have shrugged their shoulders and moved on. I wonder how many previous orders with bakers there have been that was turned away but did not make the news? I wish the media would concentrate on news that affect real people instead of the odd couple here and there. Are you allowed to say that about homosexuals partners?
Rincewind Posted 11 July 2014 Posted 11 July 2014 Are you allowed to say that about homosexuals partners? I did think about changing it but then thought nah people will know what it means.
MooseBreath Posted 11 July 2014 Posted 11 July 2014 I did think about changing it but then thought nah people will know whay it means. Exactly. Keep that bit in! We want to dumb down we want to scapegoat we want to give them the biggest plonker of the year.
Rincewind Posted 11 July 2014 Posted 11 July 2014 I do not understand your reasoning or the connection. Who is them? Maybe I should have put a smiley icon after it.
Xen Posted 11 July 2014 Posted 11 July 2014 There really is a big difference between refusing to provide a service promoting a particular message (a cake promoting gay marriage in this case), and refusing to provide a generally available service because of someone's sexuality (or race/gender). I assume that if a gay bloke walks into this bakery and asks for a loaf of bread, they serve him like anyone else. If not, that would be quite a different matter. I disagree with their opposition to gay marriage but they have an absolute right to express it. Otherwise, would the SWP be compelled to publish the BNP manifesto if asked, and could the BNP be compelled to publish the Socialist Worker?! This case is clear cut to me - they should be able to refuse to produce a cake bearing a message they disagree with. The rest is a real can of worms, though. If I ran a bakery, would I be happy to serve Nick Griffin with a loaf of bread? I'm not sure that I would. Admittedly, that would be due to his opinions, not any aspect of his inherent identity, such as sexuality or race, but still... Maximum liberty provided that others aren't harmed (without legal justification)! As a gay man myself, I completely agree with this (and Alf's follow-up post). I (obviously) don't agree with some of the reasons people give for discriminatory behaviours, but in this instance it doesn't appear that any individual has been discriminated against. As others have said, if a customer who was either straight or had not revealed their sexuality to the shop owner had asked for the cake, the response would be identical. It's important for everyone on both sides of the issue to understand that everyone is entitled to their individual views and opinions, no matter how controversial or damning. And if those opinions cause a business owner to feel uncomfortable offering a particular service or product, then that has to be respected. It's only when the refusal of service is solely based on the identity of the customer that there is a case for unlawful discrimination - which does not seem to be the case here. In this instance, it seems like a petty dispute that has been sensationalised to bring attention to a non-existent problem, rather than being resolved by taking the simplest solution available (find another baker). There are of course other instances which are more controversial or contentious than this (such as in the case of the B&B), but this particular story shouldn't have made the headlines. Some of the comments that have been thrown around in relation to it, however... As an aside, some of the off-hand homophobic comments and jokes earlier in this thread may seem innocent to some of you, but are actually incredibly offensive and unnecessary, particularly coming from some of you who then claim that you're not homophobic or that you're 'supportive' of LGBT people... Personally I'm not too bothered, but the attitude being displayed towards the comments highlights the normalised homophobia in society and is directly contributing to the problem...
Rincewind Posted 11 July 2014 Posted 11 July 2014 True. The objection was to the product not the people. If a chocolate cake was turned awy from a B&B would that be OK? I try not to write anything offensive and appolgise if ( have. My earlier post ended up being a bad pun, Does nobody remember the film with Jack Lemmon and Walter Mathaeu?
MooseBreath Posted 11 July 2014 Posted 11 July 2014 I do not understand your reasoning or the connection. Who is them? Maybe I should have put a smiley icon after it. I froze your tears and made a dagger, and stabbed in it my cock, forever, it stays there like excalibur. Are you my Arthur? Say you are.
PAPA LAZAROU Posted 12 July 2014 Posted 12 July 2014 I have been to pubs and been refused on colour. And been to clubs and been told the same......what's your thoughts on that guys? Change your colour ? I know I did.
Sharpe's Fox Posted 19 May 2015 Posted 19 May 2015 Don't know why you would take someone to court over a cake and make them suffer all the ordeals a high profile case like it would bring. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you can't be a dick.
ADK Posted 19 May 2015 Posted 19 May 2015 Well the bakery could have just made the cake. Being a religious nutcase doesn't mean you can't be a dick.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 19 May 2015 Posted 19 May 2015 Well after this ruling, I'm off to the Halal butchers to demand a pork chop.
Unabomber Posted 19 May 2015 Posted 19 May 2015 Gayest cake is either victoria sponge or jam roly poly imo.
Strokes Posted 19 May 2015 Posted 19 May 2015 Gayest cake is either victoria sponge or jam roly poly imo.Fudge cake.
bovril Posted 19 May 2015 Posted 19 May 2015 Fudge cake. If we're talking visually then surely an eclair.
Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo Posted 19 May 2015 Posted 19 May 2015 Spotted dick, ooh pardon! I'm off to the halal butchers and ask them to make a gay pork meatloaf with highly suggestible gay buzzwords in bacon and then have them deliver it through a glory hole at a high profile gay cottage
Danno Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 I suspect most would be outraged if a muslim place did the same.
Captain... Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 Well after this ruling, I'm off to the Halal butchers to demand a pork chop. I'm off to the halal butchers and ask them to make a gay pork meatloaf with highly suggestible gay buzzwords in bacon and then have them deliver it through a glory hole at a high profile gay cottageI like this game, although it is easier to remember everything when it is all written down...Today I went to the halal butchers and asked for a pork chop a gay meatloaf (with suggestive bacon bits) and a rum drizzle cake in the shape of Mohammed to be delivered by a woman on her period.
Guest MattP Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 Imagine living in 2015 and being against gay marriage That's most of the planet though in reality isn't it? Look at the Islamic World, you can barely find a country where they won't imprison you for a homosexual act (or far worse) let alone actually have legalised gay marriage. Not really surprised at the ruling although like most I see it as very wrong, no equal society can ever have a heirachy of rights and this is clearly that, no free society can ever be one if it can attack a persons deeply religious held convictions as this case has done. No clearer example of the new tyranny that is becoming just as oppressive as the old ones is more on show than this. Freedom of thought crime at it's absolutely worst and you hope the fascists who support things like this get a taste of their own medicine with it one day. The most bizarre thing is the wording of the equality commission, political views are now also being taken into account alongside race, sexuality etc so we'll soon have the bizarre situation where an Asian printer would be forced by law to print BNP leaflets etc if they wanted them too. (and if Markw ever runs one he'll be printing my 'support foxhunting' leaflets of course ). Ironically, this will now probably lead to the 'conscience' clause being introdocued by the Northern Irish parliament (it was only just voted down last time), which will be used by genuine bigots to make them able to discriminate. What a lot may think it a victory for gay rights could actually set them back quite a while.
Alf Bentley Posted 20 May 2015 Posted 20 May 2015 I support gay marriage (why shouldn't gay couples be entitled to the same misery as straight couples? ) and would have supported a case brought if the bakery had refused to serve the bloke because he was gay. I strongly disagree with this judgement, though, as an infringement of free speech / freedom of expression. Provided they are not inciting hatred, breaking the law or whatever, individuals and businesses should be able to express whatever views they like - and customers can judge them accordingly. Neither should they be compelled to express views they disagree with. Presumably, if a Northern Irish campaigner against gay marriage now orders a cake bearing the slogan "Oppose gay marriage" from a gay baker, that baker will be legally obliged to provide it? Ridiculous! If it became law in England, presumably I'd be obliged to translate the wisdom of Jean-Marie LePen for the BNP, if asked, and could commission Webbo to come round with a pot of red paint to do a nice hammer-and-sickle design on my wall, complete with the slogan "Kick the Tories out" and he'd be unable to refuse....except if it wasn't profitable. Because that's an interesting part of the grounds for the judgment: apparently commercial motives are the only ones permitted in business decisions, not religious views, or presumably other moral, ethical or political opinions. On that basis, presumably all these "ethical business" initiatives should be illegal, unless they are shown to be motivated solely by commerce/profit? (They often are, to be fair!) How does this all fit in with the right of businesspeople to trade with whomsoever they want? A pub landlord doesn't have to even give a reason for refusing to serve somebody, provided it is not discrimination. Wetherspoons just lost a case like that because a particular pub imposed a blanket ban on Travellers. I agree with that judgment, as it's discrimination on racial/ethnic grounds - they should just have refused to serve any individual Travellers who behaved rowdily, disturbed other customers or whatever.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.