Religion No Excuse For Gay Discrimination

[Zacs-Master]

In a similar case to Cakegate, a court in the US has ruled that discrimination against gays on religious grounds isn't lawful:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/florist-discrimination-gay-couple-washington-court.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[Jackdaw33]

Which cretin invented the word 'Cakegate'?

[Ellipsis]

Le me try to break that down, v_e.

> //Islay.... are you, like me, surprised that there are some people on here that give tacit support to bigots ?

OK, first part. Is the florist a bigot? Bigotry is defined as "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself". So, arguably, yes, she is a bigot. She has been intolerant towards the gay couple, in refusing to serve them when that is the very thing she is in business to do. Whether she is standing by her principles or not is moot if her principles are themselves bigoted.

The second part - are some people giving tacit support to bigots, i.e. the florist? Unquestionably, some people are supporting the florist, which is why the thread is still ongoing.

The third part - "are you, like me, surprised?" - is straying into dangerous ground. I don't think Mikey could really claim to be surprised by any of the responses on this thread. I don't know what he was trying to do here.

Now the response.

> 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.

Let's break that down.

> Mikey I think people are just exposing themselves as bigots!

I think that's a highly contentious statement. I would not take it that far.

> 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.

To a point, you can pick and choose who you do business with, so this statement is wrong. What you can't do is pick and choose based on illegal prejudice, which I think is what was meant.

[Jackdaw33]

Flamin' Norah! All this over a bunch of flowers!

[douglas9401]

I don't think you can call them that these days, Jackdaw. :P

[-Talbot-]

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.



Well that's not true, no idea why Islay would say that.

[andy-hughes]

jackdaw - //Flamin' Norah! All this over a bunch of flowers! //

If that is a serious statement - and history leads me to think that it is - then it proves that you have understood absolutely nothing of what this debate is about.

If you are being ironic - it runs the risk of being missed as such.

[andy-hughes]

douglas - //"... you get accused and convicted because you break the law, and I see nothing whatsoever that is honourable about that."

Not even in Alabama, on a bus? //

If you are seriously trying to draw a parallel between Rosa Parkes' actions in 1963, when she was protesting against national ingrained prejudice, and this woman florist who is actually practising her own personal ingrained prejudice, you'll excuse me if I laugh out loud.

[-Talbot-]

you get accused and convicted because you break the law, and I see nothing whatsoever that is honourable about that.



The reply by douglas was excellent..

[Samjenko]

"... you get accused and convicted because you break the law, and I see nothing whatsoever that is honourable about that."

Not even in Alabama, on a bus?

Please bluster on.

Of course, we all know 'the law's the law' only counts when it's a law that 'we' agree with.

[naomi24]

Having read the contributions to this thread since my last submission, I am of the opinion that one or two of us – or maybe three or four – are talking about something that is clearly eluding others. I’ll return again when those people have caught up – if they ever do....

[Garaman]

The analogy with Muslims not serving alcohol or pork doesn't work for me. That would be akin to the lady not serving roses because her religion doesn't let her touch them. No discrimination as I see it. In this case she is making the judgement on who she will serve not what she will serve.

'He who judges will be judged' - she should recognise that and accept that she has been judged!

[Samjenko]

''He who judges will be judged' - she should recognise that and accept that she has been judged!''

^Meaningless drivel.

[andy-hughes]

Smanjenko - //''He who judges will be judged' - she should recognise that and accept that she has been judged!''

^Meaningless drivel. //

As an atheist, I would entirely agree.

But Christians, like this florist, might not - it's Mathew 7:2 - that's from the Bible, just to make sure you know.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //I am of the opinion that one or two of us – or maybe three or four – are talking about something that is clearly eluding others. I’ll return again when those people have caught up – if they ever do.... //

I am probably not a member of your clique who grasp something that is eluding 'others'.

If by 'catching up, you mean seeing the situation as you do, then I am delighted not to be 'catching up'.

Why do you always have to see people who don't agree with you as somehow missing something only you, and your select coterie, can see?

[-Talbot-]

Was that off the top of your head, andy?

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - //Was that off the top of your head, andy? //

I have no idea what you are talking about.

But would I be bothered if I did know?

Probably not.