Ashers Bakery Lose Same-Sex Cake Appeal

[Islay]

Common sense at last, they run a business if you bake a cake in Liverpool colours does not mean that you support Liverpool!

They were in the wrong and its about time the accepted it.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/live-updates-ashers-bakery-lose-samesex-cake-appeal-35154967.html

[naomi24]

Islay, do tell.

[naomi24]

Back later....

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //I am a stickler for principle and I don’t agree that the law should require people to abandon their principles to appease and accommodate others. //

I don't agree that it should require people to abandon their principles to appease and accommodate others either.

But I also live with the realities that if you set yourself up in a business, and you are going to enforce your principles on your business customers, you run the risk, at best of alienating your customer base, and at worst the risk of breaking the law.

As I have said, if principles must trump standard business practice, then adjust your business to accommodate it, or make your feelings known in advance.

A sign saying "We reserve the right not to complete orders which we feel would contravene our personal religious beliefs. would do the job.

But, if all else fails - be a real Christian - turn the other cheek.

[andy-hughes]

Islay - ////but I am a stickler for principle and I don’t agree that the law should require people to abandon their principles to appease and accommodate others. //

Does anyone else see the irony of this argument? //

Could it centred around the Islam integration / burka-wearing / tolerance of other cultures interface ball park area type scenario .... by any chance?

[Islay]

Do ya think AH?

[naomi24]

Oh gawd! Do get a grip you two! We’re not talking about the negative effects of immigration here, or of issues of national security! We’re talking about a businessman’s right to run his business in the way he sees fit!

[andy-hughes]

Islay - //Do ya think AH? //

I do!

I admire Naomi's tenacity and willingness to defend her view, and I am really looking forward to see how she deals with this particular cleft stick!

[naomi24]

Cast your eyes skywards.

[EcclesCake]

Trivial to you maybe murraymmints.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //Oh gawd! Do get a grip you two! We’re not talking about the negative effects of immigration here, or of issues of national security! We’re talking about a businessman’s right to run his business in the way he sees fit! //

It's not a matter of a businessman running his business 'in the way he sees fit' - which is his choice, it is about operating within the law, which is not.

Speaking for myself - I am not talking about the negative effects of immigration or national security either.

I am talking about a Muslim woman's right to wear a burka in public, which is every bit as morally justifiable as a Christian bake turning away orders for cakes supporting gay marriage.

The defence of freedoms to practice personal integrity is the crux of this debate - and it is the crux of the burka debate as well.

You cannot take opposing sides without being challenged.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //Cast your eyes skywards. //

I know neither to whom that is addressed, or what it means.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes,// it is about operating within the law//

We know.

//I am talking about a Muslim woman's right to wear a burka in public, which is every bit as morally justifiable as a Christian bake turning away orders for cakes supporting gay marriage.//

I disagree – and in fact I see no correlation between the two whatsoever. The burka issue is far, far more complex - but I’m not getting into that here. If you want to talk about that, start another thread.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //I disagree – and in fact I see no correlation between the two whatsoever. The burka issue is far, far more complex - but I’m not getting into that here. If you want to talk about that, start another thread. //

I am disappointed!

You have been given enough moral argument rope to hang yourself with, and you have done so, and now you attempt to sidestep the need to defend your dichotomy of views.

Oh well, onwards ...

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //Cast your eyes skywards. // meant look at the post above yours at 14:59. I'd already posted the answer you were so looking forward to reading.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes,// it is about operating within the law//

We know. //

Who is 'we'?

I know, but I suggest that you do not - since you have spent the entire thread trying to place principles over law anywhere and everywhere you have posted.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes, //Cast your eyes skywards. // meant look at the post above yours at 14:59. I'd already posted the answer you were so looking forward to reading. //

Thank you - that was a victim of cross-posting I think - I missed your response because I was typing my next rebuttal.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes at 15:08, I haven't attempted to sidestep. I've invited you to start a separate thread. I'll willingly join you there - that's if you changed your mind about refusing to discuss Islam with me.

[murraymints]

sigh ..

[ummmm]

And here we have it. The Andy and Naomi show!!

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes at 15:08, I haven't attempted to sidestep. I've invited you to start a separate thread. I'll willingly join you there - that's if you changed your mind about refusing to discuss Islam with me. //

Thanks for your offer, but I'd rather stay here, where you have consistently defended the 'principle' of religious belief when it comes to breaking the law of the land, and yet on burka debates, you have consistently sought to deny the religious freedoms of Muslim women who wish to dress a certain way, and break no laws in doing so.