Christian bakery wins 'gay cake' ruling from UK supreme court

No...you cant control what offends people but there is a difference between a religious symbol and having to put phrases and actual words that go against your religion...i think my point is lost on you but maybe I should have used better analogies. ..anyway, this is going nowhere...best of luck to you

 

The question was can one be fired for wearing a cross to work. Your scenario, not mine.

That has nothing to do with refusing to decorate a cake. There is a vast difference between a customer and an employee, they are more opposite than they are alike. In the case of the baker, he is actually closer to the employee than the employer.

What you should be asking is can an employer force its employees to wear religious symbols. On that I would say no, unless it is somehow required for the position.

 

I hate peas because of the texture.
But I like pea soup.
And I like snap peas too!

My wife loves peas, but hates beans of any kind, because of the texture.
Black beans, pinto beans, and even refried beans.

I posit that I am far more reasonable than her.
I mean, really, refried beans??

 

The baker pushed his religion instead of just saying "I won't be able to fill that order." He had to add "Because I am Christian and you are gay" A business cannot be Christian and a cake cannot be gay. They may have a religious belief regarding dark skin, but that would also bring in lawyers.

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, although it was once considered one back in the 70s. If we are to only serve customers that conform to our religious beliefs, wouldn't that eliminate all prospective customers? Have you ever had a BJ? You are guilty of sodomy and should not expect service from any Christian, right?

Bottom line: Society is changing, religion is declining, and being gay is no longer the sin it was once considered. I think its sad to see hard working businessmen shoveling money over to greedy attorneys because they use their business to push religious beliefs. Its just stupid.

 

So now it’s only “phrases”. I’m guessing you would mandate a rainbow and two males holding hands as symbols, as long as there isn’t words? Correct?

This is y’all own argument, that it makes no sense shows you are on the wrong side of the argument.

 

At this point you have lost all that credibility on the subject... If the person has NEVER offered that design then why should he change his business to suit your fancy? Clearly you are not practicing your own philosophy "If I ever believed it was " you admittedly believe your desire and importance to have a frosted dick mounted atop a pastry places you above what this establishment does not offer and has never offered!

Sound like person really interested in equality or does it sound like a whiney customers demanding McDonalds serve/prepare a "Big Mac" in the shape of half pound dick!

Sorry Mr, Equality, but dicks just aint on the menu, never have been never will be in this location! Try another shop, "Good'day"

What's next on your equality quest, you want to be able to buy blow up dolls and dildos at the Toys "R" us

 

No one should be forced to put dickburgers on their menu, but the business should serve what is on the menu equally.

 

Perfect!

 

Except the free exercise of religion is protected in the Bill of Rights, unlike the newly minted right of people with same sex feelings to marry.

 

How about making a black business cater to the KKK? A Jewish one for Nazis? Forcing a Muslim printer to print Muhammad cartoons?

 

Another cake for teh gayz....

 

Can pedophiles change?

 

I totally understand that this is a question you want to ask (and answer). The fact remains that it isn't a relevant question to the specific case being reported here and generally not as prominent a question in the UK in general. It would be wrong to hijack this case to support some unrelated socio-political argument.

I'm not sure which theory of mine you're talking about here. The baker in this case won in the end and I always agreed that is the correct result, legally and morally.

 

I think you're mixing this British case up with similar (but distinct) ones in the US. There is absolutely no logical line of connection between this case and any censorship on social media (real or imagined).

 

And it should be. A business, however, is not an individual. You have every right to refuse to allow blacks, gays, Hundus, etc into your home. That is your right as an individual. The moment you put a "For Rent" sign out front, you are no longer acting as an individual.

I would even be okay with refusing to do business for whatever reason you want, as long as things are equal.

 

How about selling whatever you want, equally? We don't sell penis cakes, but you can pick anything from our menu!

I love the Muslim printer example. What in an infidel just wants invitations printed?

 

wtf are you talking about!!!

i keep forgetting not drinking before respnding to you!!

 

You sure about that

 

I would suspect the urge is always there - whether or not they act on that urge is another question.

 

The bill of rights is not applicable outside the USA, whereas this storm in a Christianist teacup is taking place in Northern Ireland.

 

The buyer wanted a slogan on the cake. The baker's viewpoint did not agree with the slogan and the court found that he could not be forced to produce such a slogan.
If the gay couple had ordered a standard cake, then he would have been legally required to make one. He an discriminate against an idea but not a person.
Gay bakers can now legally refuse to bake cakes wih anti-gay slogans on them.

 

Oh Harvey you will get those evil gays someday.

 

The Christian lobbying group that bankrolled the bakers in the ‘gay cake’ row has been denied service by a photography business, after arguing for the right of private companies to deny service.

The Christian Institute, a lobbying group that has long opposed LGBT+ equality, had booked a photographer through website Perfocal to cover Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling, placing a £267 order for a package to provide photography services outside the hearing.

And the poofters strike back!

Link.

 

The baker won, because, as I'm pointing out, the case wasn't a case of discrimination. Even in the UK, you folks do enjoy something of a freedom of speech there. You also have anti discrimination laws. The exercise of the baker's rights to not support the sloganeering of the activist correctly balances the personal rights of the baker over the marketing intent or campaigning intent of the activist, and wasn't considered to be an example of discrimination.

 

I agree, my point is that is all this case says. Your references to “deeply held beliefs” and “government force” are entirely irrelevant. If a business owners deeply held belief leads them to discriminate, the government can force them to stop and if a business owners casual ignorance leads them to discriminate, the government can force them to stop. Having “deeply held beliefs” doesn’t alter our rights and responsibilities under the law and the ruling in this case doesn’t alter the right of government to enforce that law.