Body & Soul0 min ago
Religion No Excuse For Gay Discrimination
316 Answers
In a similar case to Cakegate, a court in the US has ruled that discrimination against gays on religious grounds isn't lawful:
https:/
https:/
Answers
A, I am not ranting. B, I have the balls to call out homophobic bigots what ever their religion ... try it for once.
09:18 Fri 17th Feb 2017
Let's take this charming exchange of billets doux:
//Islay.... are you, like me, surprised that there are some people on here that give tacit support to bigots ?
Mikey I think people are just exposing themselves as bigots!
In my mind if you are in business you can not pick and choose who you serve it does not matter what line of business you are in.//
The posters sympathetic to the convicted florist are so because while she was acting illegally she was doing so on a point of conscience. To call her a bigot seems somewhat unkind. (Although people who understand Mikey-speak know that in his usage bigot/fascist/Nazi are just different synonyms for "Don't agree with Mikey".). The following point has been made earlier in the thread but remains unanswered. The treatment accorded to the Muslim girl who refused to serve a customer with a bottle of wine (also on religious principle) was rather more generous.. In fact some of the same posters who are abusing the Christian for her beliefs seemed forgiving to the point of respect for the Muslima's prejudices: "How dare Tesco force this girl to compromise her religion! Get her manager sacked/retrained/immolated in public! etc. etc.".
I ask the reasonable ones among those of you who support the legal action to explain in what important - that is to say moral - way the actions and motivations of the two women should be seen as different.
And a second question addressed to the same sub-set: what inferences do you think you can legitimately draw from posts speaking in the florist's defence that justifies calling the posters bigots.
//Islay.... are you, like me, surprised that there are some people on here that give tacit support to bigots ?
Mikey I think people are just exposing themselves as bigots!
In my mind if you are in business you can not pick and choose who you serve it does not matter what line of business you are in.//
The posters sympathetic to the convicted florist are so because while she was acting illegally she was doing so on a point of conscience. To call her a bigot seems somewhat unkind. (Although people who understand Mikey-speak know that in his usage bigot/fascist/Nazi are just different synonyms for "Don't agree with Mikey".). The following point has been made earlier in the thread but remains unanswered. The treatment accorded to the Muslim girl who refused to serve a customer with a bottle of wine (also on religious principle) was rather more generous.. In fact some of the same posters who are abusing the Christian for her beliefs seemed forgiving to the point of respect for the Muslima's prejudices: "How dare Tesco force this girl to compromise her religion! Get her manager sacked/retrained/immolated in public! etc. etc.".
I ask the reasonable ones among those of you who support the legal action to explain in what important - that is to say moral - way the actions and motivations of the two women should be seen as different.
And a second question addressed to the same sub-set: what inferences do you think you can legitimately draw from posts speaking in the florist's defence that justifies calling the posters bigots.
> you can mention Christian bigotry against gay people but not Muslim bigotry against gay people
Of course you can. It's the same thing.
I think the issue is that everybody agrees in the case of Muslims that it's bigotry, whereas in the case of Christians for some reason that 100% agreement isn't there.
Of course you can. It's the same thing.
I think the issue is that everybody agrees in the case of Muslims that it's bigotry, whereas in the case of Christians for some reason that 100% agreement isn't there.
///.... you can mention Christian bigotry against gay people but not Muslim bigotry against gay people.
Because the hypocrites or cowards or both say that makes you a bigot.///
That's not strictly true.
The point is that some ABers have looked at the link supplied by ZM and tried to stick to the case-in-point, i.e. that the florist in question was a devout Christian, etc.
Others have focused more on the heading of the thread and explained what may have happened if the florist had been Muslim. I. amongst others, though it might be nice to have a thread where Muslims and all-things-Islam did not become the main issue.
Others disagree.
However, I am yet to find anyone who wishes to debate quite what the Jews, Hindus, Zoroastians and Buddhists would have thought of the issue.
Because the hypocrites or cowards or both say that makes you a bigot.///
That's not strictly true.
The point is that some ABers have looked at the link supplied by ZM and tried to stick to the case-in-point, i.e. that the florist in question was a devout Christian, etc.
Others have focused more on the heading of the thread and explained what may have happened if the florist had been Muslim. I. amongst others, though it might be nice to have a thread where Muslims and all-things-Islam did not become the main issue.
Others disagree.
However, I am yet to find anyone who wishes to debate quite what the Jews, Hindus, Zoroastians and Buddhists would have thought of the issue.
> I ask the reasonable ones among those of you who support the legal action to explain in what important - that is to say moral - way the actions and motivations of the two women should be seen as different.
A gay man is on the way to a friend's wedding. He walks into Tesco to buy some flowers (let's leave his cheapskateness out of this). The Tesco shop assistant says, "Oh these are lovely flowers, are they for someone special". The gay mans says "Oh yes, they're for my gay friends who are getting married today". The Tesco assistant says, "Oh I'm sorry, I can't personally sell you these. It's against my religion. I'll have to get somebody else to do it." They call over a colleague, who sells the gay man the flowers. That is an equivalent of the Muslim girl refusing to sell a bottle of wine.
Tesco is in business to sell wine and sell flowers, and it does not discriminate in who it sells to (though its individual workers may).
In the case of the florist's shop (I write "florist's shop" deliberately to differentiate the business from the individual), it did discriminate and that's what was illegal. The same went for the bakery.
A gay man is on the way to a friend's wedding. He walks into Tesco to buy some flowers (let's leave his cheapskateness out of this). The Tesco shop assistant says, "Oh these are lovely flowers, are they for someone special". The gay mans says "Oh yes, they're for my gay friends who are getting married today". The Tesco assistant says, "Oh I'm sorry, I can't personally sell you these. It's against my religion. I'll have to get somebody else to do it." They call over a colleague, who sells the gay man the flowers. That is an equivalent of the Muslim girl refusing to sell a bottle of wine.
Tesco is in business to sell wine and sell flowers, and it does not discriminate in who it sells to (though its individual workers may).
In the case of the florist's shop (I write "florist's shop" deliberately to differentiate the business from the individual), it did discriminate and that's what was illegal. The same went for the bakery.
What I keep coming back to is this -
the florist did not have to refuse to serve her customers because of her beliefs, there are dozens of excuses she could offer in order to keep goodwill, and keep herself out of court.
What she appeared unable to do was not only to break the law based on her religious principles, which is wrong, but to make sure that the whole world knew that she was doing it, and why she was doing it, which is as arrogant as it is stupid.
Word to the wise - if your religion makes you so narrow-minded and prejudiced that you feel you have to not only have an unwarranted and uninvited opinion on how your customers choose to live their lives - try not being so pompous as to think that the whole world needs to know that you are breaking the law because your arrogance demands that you make a noise about it.
Be a bigot if you must, but keep your mouth shut!
the florist did not have to refuse to serve her customers because of her beliefs, there are dozens of excuses she could offer in order to keep goodwill, and keep herself out of court.
What she appeared unable to do was not only to break the law based on her religious principles, which is wrong, but to make sure that the whole world knew that she was doing it, and why she was doing it, which is as arrogant as it is stupid.
Word to the wise - if your religion makes you so narrow-minded and prejudiced that you feel you have to not only have an unwarranted and uninvited opinion on how your customers choose to live their lives - try not being so pompous as to think that the whole world needs to know that you are breaking the law because your arrogance demands that you make a noise about it.
Be a bigot if you must, but keep your mouth shut!
I thought the "florist's shop" was a small business like the baker's in the UK, case, Ellipsis. In which case my point stands. She acted on principle (whether or not you - or I - agree with that principle), and, like others, has suffered a legal penalty of her stance. This seems honourable on her part, not something to abuse her for.
Ellipsis > you can mention Christian bigotry against gay people but not Muslim bigotry against gay people
Of course you can. It's the same thing.
I think the issue is that everybody agrees in the case of Muslims that it's bigotry, whereas in the case of Christians for some reason that 100% agreement isn't there.
____________________________
Are you saying the posters on this thread saying the gay couple should shut up and try elsewhere wouldn't change their view if the shopkeeper was Muslim?
That is quite an accusation. With nearly 300 replies I may have missed something ... have I missed something?
Of course you can. It's the same thing.
I think the issue is that everybody agrees in the case of Muslims that it's bigotry, whereas in the case of Christians for some reason that 100% agreement isn't there.
____________________________
Are you saying the posters on this thread saying the gay couple should shut up and try elsewhere wouldn't change their view if the shopkeeper was Muslim?
That is quite an accusation. With nearly 300 replies I may have missed something ... have I missed something?
vetuste - // She acted on principle (whether or not you - or I - agree with that principle), and, like others, has suffered a legal penalty of her stance. This seems honourable on her part, not something to abuse her for. //
As jack has pointed out, and I am happy to repeat - you don't get accused and convicted of acting out of principle, you get accused and convicted because you break the law, and I see nothing whatsoever that is honourable about that.
As jack has pointed out, and I am happy to repeat - you don't get accused and convicted of acting out of principle, you get accused and convicted because you break the law, and I see nothing whatsoever that is honourable about that.
Small business, large business, it does not matter, v_e. It's a business. A business can't discriminate.
It goes back that "No blacks, no Irish" sign ... this is another variant of the same thing. Just because an opinion is strongly held, on whatever grounds, doesn't mean it's legal (I'll leave "doesn't mean it's right" out of it).
It goes back that "No blacks, no Irish" sign ... this is another variant of the same thing. Just because an opinion is strongly held, on whatever grounds, doesn't mean it's legal (I'll leave "doesn't mean it's right" out of it).
I'm not arguing the legal case, Ellipsis: the law is as the law is. I'm arguing for conscience. The women broke the law on a point of principle. And got fined for it. Thomas More broke the law and paid a higher price. I can disagree with both florist and More for their principles, but respect them for standing by them.
That's fine, v_e, you can respect the woman for standing by her principles.
Personally, because I have little respect for her principles, as they are not grounded in logic, reason or fact but in some prejudiced "belief", then I have little respect for her in standing by those principles; much like I have little respect of other religious principles such as denigrating women ...
Personally, because I have little respect for her principles, as they are not grounded in logic, reason or fact but in some prejudiced "belief", then I have little respect for her in standing by those principles; much like I have little respect of other religious principles such as denigrating women ...
I cited these two comments in my original post, Ellipsis:
//Islay.... are you, like me, surprised that there are some people on here that give tacit support to bigots ?
Mikey I think people are just exposing themselves as bigots!
In my mind if you are in business you can not pick and choose who you serve it does not matter what line of business you are in.//
This offensive language was endorsed by one of AB's dog-owners a few posts later.
//Islay.... are you, like me, surprised that there are some people on here that give tacit support to bigots ?
Mikey I think people are just exposing themselves as bigots!
In my mind if you are in business you can not pick and choose who you serve it does not matter what line of business you are in.//
This offensive language was endorsed by one of AB's dog-owners a few posts later.
Latest Posts
Crosswords5 mins ago
Well At Least Sir Kier Is Topping One...
News8 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
Crosswords13 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.