He's Already Talking About A 3Rd Term.
News6 mins 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.
Ellipsis; // such decisions of conscience / belief / opinion / prejudice / intolerance [delete as applicable] are not aligned with the law of the land,//
That may be true (though it seems it is not in this NI case), but that doesn't stop an individual for making a decision contrary to the laws of the land, an example being conscientious objection to participating in warfare.
In WW2, in the UK alone, thousands of men and women were charged with offences to do with conscientious objection, and most of them were sent to prison.
That may be true (though it seems it is not in this NI case), but that doesn't stop an individual for making a decision contrary to the laws of the land, an example being conscientious objection to participating in warfare.
In WW2, in the UK alone, thousands of men and women were charged with offences to do with conscientious objection, and most of them were sent to prison.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
CaveHill I've read all replies and not one seems homophobic to me. One is allowed to criticise the actions of a person who just happens to be Gay without it actually being a 'Gay' issue. Unfortunately some people use their Sexual Orientation, Race or Religion to justify their perceived personal violation.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
> Now, I'm absolutely certain they would have refused to bake the cake irrespective of whether the customer was gay, straight, black, white, whatever. In other words no-one was discriminated against. No-one was treated differently to how anyone else would have been treated.
ludwig, how long did it take you to reach this conclusion, and what legal background do you have? This case took almost a year to reach a ruling, and the ruling was made by a judge. That suggests that it is not as cut and dried as you imagine, especially as the judge ruled the opposite way to the way your logic dictates.
I accept that people may have completely opposite opinions to the ruling. As for why the ruling went the way it did, I believe it comes down to a response I gave to Naomi: The whole point is that being gay doesn't make people a special case. Mr. Lee was not asking for special treatment, but he got it! He was just asking to be treated the same way as everybody else. i.e. if you can go into the bakery and ask for (and get) a cake decorated with a "Jesus Lives" message, why shouldn't he be able to go into the same bakery and ask for (and get) a cake decorated with a gay equality message? The bakery is in business to make money, which means it has to abide by anti-discrimination legislation.
If a pharmacy sells contraceptives, then you can be sure that someone in that pharmacy will sell you the contraceptives you wanted - otherwise there would be no point stocking them.
Likewise, if a supermarket sells alcohol, or pork, you can be sure that someone in that supermarket will sell you alcohol or pork - again, otherwise there would be no point stocking them.
This bakery sold cakes, but refused to sell a cake based on a decision that fell foul of anti-discrimination legislation. The reason it went to a ruling was that neither side would back down. The bakery lost. It's that simple.
> That may be true (though it seems it is not in this NI case), but that doesn't stop an individual for making a decision contrary to the laws of the land, an example being conscientious objection to participating in warfare.
Absolutely, Khandro, but those individuals then have to accept that the law deals with them appropriately.
ludwig, how long did it take you to reach this conclusion, and what legal background do you have? This case took almost a year to reach a ruling, and the ruling was made by a judge. That suggests that it is not as cut and dried as you imagine, especially as the judge ruled the opposite way to the way your logic dictates.
I accept that people may have completely opposite opinions to the ruling. As for why the ruling went the way it did, I believe it comes down to a response I gave to Naomi: The whole point is that being gay doesn't make people a special case. Mr. Lee was not asking for special treatment, but he got it! He was just asking to be treated the same way as everybody else. i.e. if you can go into the bakery and ask for (and get) a cake decorated with a "Jesus Lives" message, why shouldn't he be able to go into the same bakery and ask for (and get) a cake decorated with a gay equality message? The bakery is in business to make money, which means it has to abide by anti-discrimination legislation.
If a pharmacy sells contraceptives, then you can be sure that someone in that pharmacy will sell you the contraceptives you wanted - otherwise there would be no point stocking them.
Likewise, if a supermarket sells alcohol, or pork, you can be sure that someone in that supermarket will sell you alcohol or pork - again, otherwise there would be no point stocking them.
This bakery sold cakes, but refused to sell a cake based on a decision that fell foul of anti-discrimination legislation. The reason it went to a ruling was that neither side would back down. The bakery lost. It's that simple.
> That may be true (though it seems it is not in this NI case), but that doesn't stop an individual for making a decision contrary to the laws of the land, an example being conscientious objection to participating in warfare.
Absolutely, Khandro, but those individuals then have to accept that the law deals with them appropriately.
SP, //Because they are in the same position as gay people in that respect. //
But they may not be. Contraceptive pills, for example, are often prescribed to alleviate medical conditions - as they were in the case I was thinking of. In its efforts to endorse the politically correct, I think the law will eventually have to concede that it's climbing up its own bottom. Give to one and you take away from another so where does it end? We simply cannot please all of the people all of the time, and even gay people have to accept that.
Ellipsis, //If a pharmacy sells contraceptives, then you can be sure that someone in that pharmacy will sell you the contraceptives you wanted//
No.
http://
But they may not be. Contraceptive pills, for example, are often prescribed to alleviate medical conditions - as they were in the case I was thinking of. In its efforts to endorse the politically correct, I think the law will eventually have to concede that it's climbing up its own bottom. Give to one and you take away from another so where does it end? We simply cannot please all of the people all of the time, and even gay people have to accept that.
Ellipsis, //If a pharmacy sells contraceptives, then you can be sure that someone in that pharmacy will sell you the contraceptives you wanted//
No.
http://
// ludwig, how long did it take you to reach this conclusion, and what legal background do you have //
Not very long, and a legal background is not required. All I need is dictionary containing an entry for the work 'discrimination'.
Common sense should tell you that if these people are opposed to gay marriage - perhaps because they're bigots and just hate gays as you seem to assume - then they're not going to agree to bake a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan on it, just because the person that asks them to so is NOT gay. It's ludicrous.
I've scanned the thread and the articles, but I've not found the evidence that suggests these people would have been happy to accept the commission if the person asking them had been heterosexual.
This evidence obviously must exist, because it's the only way anyone could come to they conclusion they discriminated against this customer because he was gay. If you could help me out by providing a link to this evidence I'd appreciate it.
I'd be happy if people would just be honest and say, look, we don't care whether they discriminated against this man or not. We're glad they lost the case because we think they're religious bigots and we don't like their opposition to gay marriage. That would make sense, but there's absolutely nothing to suggest that he was treated any differently to how a straight person would have been when requesting the same cake design.
Not very long, and a legal background is not required. All I need is dictionary containing an entry for the work 'discrimination'.
Common sense should tell you that if these people are opposed to gay marriage - perhaps because they're bigots and just hate gays as you seem to assume - then they're not going to agree to bake a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan on it, just because the person that asks them to so is NOT gay. It's ludicrous.
I've scanned the thread and the articles, but I've not found the evidence that suggests these people would have been happy to accept the commission if the person asking them had been heterosexual.
This evidence obviously must exist, because it's the only way anyone could come to they conclusion they discriminated against this customer because he was gay. If you could help me out by providing a link to this evidence I'd appreciate it.
I'd be happy if people would just be honest and say, look, we don't care whether they discriminated against this man or not. We're glad they lost the case because we think they're religious bigots and we don't like their opposition to gay marriage. That would make sense, but there's absolutely nothing to suggest that he was treated any differently to how a straight person would have been when requesting the same cake design.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank12 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
Reeves Is Now After Your Pension Funds
News20 mins ago
News21 mins ago
ChatterBank34 mins ago
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.