Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
We Are Not Gay Bakers
Another one of these rulings
http://
This is a bit odd though
//His party colleague David McIlveen tweeted: "Utterly sickened that a Christian owned business has been hauled over the coals for refusing to promote something that is not legal in NI."//
http://
This is a bit odd though
//His party colleague David McIlveen tweeted: "Utterly sickened that a Christian owned business has been hauled over the coals for refusing to promote something that is not legal in NI."//
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't necessarily agree with what you're saying, ie 'that they used religion as a basis for discrimination'.
My question to you is, do you believe they would have agreed to bake the same cake for someone who wasn't gay?
If you're answer is 'no they wouldn't have', then they can't have discriminated against that particular customer on the grounds that he was gay - or am I missing something?.
My question to you is, do you believe they would have agreed to bake the same cake for someone who wasn't gay?
If you're answer is 'no they wouldn't have', then they can't have discriminated against that particular customer on the grounds that he was gay - or am I missing something?.
I would like to think that if you own and run a business you can choose the way you wish to run it. If the wording on the cake was not deemed acceptable to the baker and the client refused to compromise the bakery should be able to say they could not fulfil his order, end of. Whatever religion they follow they should be able to stand for what they feel without be castigated and taken to court. It's the B&B business all over again.
Ludwig, they've openly and unashamedly admitted that it was their religion which didn't 'allow' them to carry out their Customers request. I don't have to provide any evidence. The court has found them guilty and the ph have admitted it was a religious standpoint. Again, what's so hard to understand?
// Do you believe they would have agreed to bake the same cake for someone who wasn't gay? //
Good question. Very, very good question.
If a HETEROSEXUAL person had come along, and said ...
I'm not gay, but I support the idea of gay marriage, so would you make me a "support gay marriage" cake?
The bakers still says no, because he is still opposed to the concept.
But now, he has not discriminated against the customer on the basis of the customer's sexuality, because the customer, like the baker, is heterosexual. So the customer would not win a legal case.
So has the law created a situation where the customer is artificially differentiated, because he is gay?
In other words, has the law created a situation where a gay person receives different treatment? Is the law itself discriminating between people of different sexual orientation?
Good question. Very, very good question.
If a HETEROSEXUAL person had come along, and said ...
I'm not gay, but I support the idea of gay marriage, so would you make me a "support gay marriage" cake?
The bakers still says no, because he is still opposed to the concept.
But now, he has not discriminated against the customer on the basis of the customer's sexuality, because the customer, like the baker, is heterosexual. So the customer would not win a legal case.
So has the law created a situation where the customer is artificially differentiated, because he is gay?
In other words, has the law created a situation where a gay person receives different treatment? Is the law itself discriminating between people of different sexual orientation?
lol. Not only is it relevant, but it's crucial to the whole thing.
You won't answer because the answer is obvious, and completely undermines the case that they discriminated against a particular customer on the grounds his sexuality.
I don't know if there's other evidence the judge had that we're not aware of, which informed his decision, but on the basis of what we do know, it's the only question that matters.
You won't answer because the answer is obvious, and completely undermines the case that they discriminated against a particular customer on the grounds his sexuality.
I don't know if there's other evidence the judge had that we're not aware of, which informed his decision, but on the basis of what we do know, it's the only question that matters.
> It's simple logic
Maybe it wasn't that simple, otherwise presumably the judge would have agreed with you.
Picture the scene in the bakery. Picture their actual decision making process, the discussions they must have had with each other, and the reasons they gave each other, before rejecting this commission. Then tell me it wasn't a decision based on religious bigotry - and that is the problem.
What about the other way around - a bakery run by gays? A Christian comes in and orders a cake promoting a "Jesus Lives" message. They gay bakers reject the commission on the basis that they don't like Christians. Seems a far less likely scenario, but this, also, would be ruled against on the same basis - the basis that gays should tolerate Christians and Christians should tolerate gays - especially in a business context.
Maybe it wasn't that simple, otherwise presumably the judge would have agreed with you.
Picture the scene in the bakery. Picture their actual decision making process, the discussions they must have had with each other, and the reasons they gave each other, before rejecting this commission. Then tell me it wasn't a decision based on religious bigotry - and that is the problem.
What about the other way around - a bakery run by gays? A Christian comes in and orders a cake promoting a "Jesus Lives" message. They gay bakers reject the commission on the basis that they don't like Christians. Seems a far less likely scenario, but this, also, would be ruled against on the same basis - the basis that gays should tolerate Christians and Christians should tolerate gays - especially in a business context.
Ellipsis;//"No dogs. No blacks. No Irish."//
You can remove the first, because the majority of shops still today exclude them with a sign clearly stating that on their doors. The second two were objectionable, but so were many things in that period and before.
What I'm saying is, if I was in business as a farmer and a halal butcher wanted to buy an animal from me, I would refuse to sell it to him, not because he is a Muslim, but because I do not approve of his methods.
You can remove the first, because the majority of shops still today exclude them with a sign clearly stating that on their doors. The second two were objectionable, but so were many things in that period and before.
What I'm saying is, if I was in business as a farmer and a halal butcher wanted to buy an animal from me, I would refuse to sell it to him, not because he is a Muslim, but because I do not approve of his methods.
Sandy, ^^ absolutely, if you wish to use any of these cartoon figures, royalties are due, but in the case of one cake, in reality it wouldn't come into effect. However if you were producing them in large quantities for sale you would be breaking the law.
Having said that, a Belgian artist has just been fined for using a photographic image of a politician taken from a newspaper as the basis of a painting, and was taken to court by the photographer. A bad precedent, because many artists, (including me) do such things all the time.
Having said that, a Belgian artist has just been fined for using a photographic image of a politician taken from a newspaper as the basis of a painting, and was taken to court by the photographer. A bad precedent, because many artists, (including me) do such things all the time.
Khandro, earlier you wrote ..
> If you are running a business you can do whatever you want with it and for whoever you want. It's your business.
Now you write ...
> The second two ["No blacks. No Irish."] were objectionable, but so were many things in that period and before.
So presumably you're now saying that if you are running a business you cannot do whatever you want with it and for whoever you want.
Do you not see the similarity? "No blacks. No Irish. No gays." Or at least, "No gays wanting a simple cake with an equality message on it that is at odds with my religious thinking".
> If you are running a business you can do whatever you want with it and for whoever you want. It's your business.
Now you write ...
> The second two ["No blacks. No Irish."] were objectionable, but so were many things in that period and before.
So presumably you're now saying that if you are running a business you cannot do whatever you want with it and for whoever you want.
Do you not see the similarity? "No blacks. No Irish. No gays." Or at least, "No gays wanting a simple cake with an equality message on it that is at odds with my religious thinking".
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.