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

This is the UK, not the US and they considered this under the laws in the UK and their Constitution so why are we considering America in any way. Likely the highest court there realized its a simple matter if John the Baker won't make a cake they find offensive to down the street and find another baker giving Mary the Baker your cake business then post on social media what John the Baker did. Then people will know of this policy and can opt to not give John the Baker business until he changes his mind or not. But why force this issue I would think it only helps in my example Mary the Baker since she would benefit from likely more business from the gay community who when the couple social media she made a nice cake and was super nice it would benefit her.

 

Then let the market put them out of business not the government.

 

His right not to participate in their wedding is freedom of religion. A gay couple is not infringed if they need to go to another baker to find someone who is willing to participate in their wedding whether you agree that forcing someone to bake a cake for a wedding is participating or not.

Yes it is and I just proved it once again and you ran from all the studies I provided that proved it.

Do you even know the history of how it was removed in the 70s? Its pretty fascinating and not the least bit scientific.

You can be as anti religious and anti science as you want but if you want a debate you cannot run from the scientific evidence that homosexuality is a mental disorder nor can you run from the reality that you cannot force someone to bake a cake for your wedding. The totalitarianism you are embracing is truly amazing.

 

Homosexuality is genetic? Based on what science?

 

Umm... actually, what the courts here are saying is that expressing a deeply held belief would qualify as discrimination. Just because you want to continue to assert that beliefs lead to discrimination doesn't mean that the court ruling supports your assertion, because it doesn't.

The standard would be can the gay activist buy a cake. The answer is yes. Zero discrimination. Only when the activist insisted on requiring the baker to add sloganeering or activism to the product did the deeply held belief provide the baker the protection from an undue burden created by the activist. That isn't discrimination, that's the bakers civil rights being protected. Not discrimination. So, the correct way to look at it is the ignorance of the activist created an undue burden on the baker, not the other way around which is why the court ruled the way it did.

Now, if the baker had just said, I won't sell you a cake, you might have an actual case. But, those aren't the facts of the case. There is no slippery slope here for you to fall down.

 

How is that not the same as not providing service?

 

While I agree no one should be forced to serve anyone, especially small business - baking a cake is not participating in a wedding. It absolutely disenfranchises and wastes the time of the patrons if the service provider does not openly advertise who they refuse service to. Be proud you’re a bigot - don’t try to hide it.

Your “studies” do not show it is a mental disorder - it showed higher depression due to bigotry - unless you are saying that blacks and air traffic controllers are also suffering from mental disorders.

It was removed because the science didn’t exist to classify it as such in the first place. You have been shown this numerous times and repeating it makes you look like the fool you are.

Rofl. Anti science. That’s cute

 

Then why do they call it a "wedding cake"? Being against Christian bakers opposed to making cakes for gay weddings is illogical. They argue that baking a cake is not expressive, and therefore not protected speech. At the same time, not baking a cake is obviously an expression. Is it one or the other?

So why are rates of gay depression and suicide also high in the Netherlands, where all things gay have been accepted and promoted for decades?

Nonsense, that decision was purely political. From another website:


"In Destructive Trends in mental health, respected veterans of the mental health industry Rogers H.Wright and Nicholas A.Cummings sought to educate consumers, practitioners, and policy makers about a variety of recent issues and trends that have significantly changed the mental health fields in America. They got established and revered practitioners to write chapters which explore these important issues. The following regarding the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 was written as a matter of verifiable fact:

“The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure when in 1973 it removed homosexuality as a treatable aberrant condition. A political firestorm had been created by gay activists within psychiatry, with intense opposition to normalizing homosexuality coming from a few outspoken psychiatrists who were demonized and even threatened, rather than scientifically refuted. Psychiatry’s House of Delegates sidestepped the conflict by putting the matter to a vote of the membership, marking for the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote than by scientific evidence…"

 

There are a number of posts on this in the thread. You can start with post 6.

 

Like I said, I support them denying service for any reason but don’t for a second buy the religious context. That’s my opinion only.

From the Netherlands study:
To the extent that disparities result from minority stress [15], these effects are likely to be more persistent and take more time to fade away. If changes occur they are likely to be first observed in younger homosexual persons; our sample size did not allow for testing that. It is also possible that prejudice and discrimination continue to be an important reality in Dutch society and that observed altitudinal changes are superficial. Furthermore, several studies suggest that other mechanisms than prejudice and discrimination also affect the observed disparities, including genetic and environmental factors associated with both sexual orientation and psychiatric morbidity [11, 12]. Zietsch and colleagues, for instance, found that genetic factors accounted for 60% of the correlation between sexual orientation and depression, while childhood sexual abuse and risky family environment also were predictors of both sexual orientation and depression.

Study limitations include that homosexual behavior and attraction could have been underreported, despite the relatively high social acceptance of homosexuality in the Netherlands. Homosexual and heterosexual persons might also differ in their willingness to report mental health complaints. Furthermore, we did not assess sexual self-identification. Also, even though the homosexual persons in this study can be considered representative for the Dutch population, their numbers are small, lowering the power to identify significant differences. In addition, small numbers required us to combine bisexual and homosexual persons, making it impossible to look at both groups separately and risking that actual differences might be masked or inflated; studies have shown that disaggregating homosexual and bisexual persons frequently resulted in attenuation of findings that would have otherwise been attributed exclusively to homosexual persons [35].

Homosexuality did not (and does not) meet the criteria for a mental illness when it was classified as such in the DSM. Why would they need to present evidence to remove it when none was presented to include it?

 

The APA removed homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses in 1973. In addition to that fact, I have gay friends, employees, and also a family member. Wanting it to be a mental illness doesn't make it one.

Im glad you mentioned science since homosexuality occurs in nature, while religion is 100% fabricated and requires blind faith. One may consider religion a mental disorder.

My sister in law served our country, runs a successful business, and is married to a female. The roads and sidewalks leading to the bakery was funded by all tax payers. As an business owner, she could not legally refuse to hire or serve someone because they are a Christian. (Not that she would)

No one is forcing the baker to do anything different than he would do for any other customer. To enjoy legal protection to do that which cannot legally be done to him, makes him a "preferred citizen". (So much for do onto others)

In some states, this will last a while. Equality is not totalitarianism. I will support a Christian business owners right to point a righteous finger at a gay person saying "We don't serve your kind here!" as long as we remove legal protection from the same thing happening to him.

The belief that Christians should have more rights than gay people goes against "all men are created equal"

Maybe our founders should have added "but some men are more equal than others." or "Christians good, gays ba'a'a'a'a'ad"

 

I agree that they should have that right to not serve such customers.
And when they get fired by the cab company for ignoring so many paying fares, they get fired.

If they have such strong beliefs in what they feel is right, they should act on it.
And then start their own cab company.

Or bake a cake.
Or not.

 

So, I would add this. Walk into any gay bar in America and don't fail to read the "we reserve the right to refuse service" notes on the wall by the door. Obviously, they are there to warn straight people about their tolerance for disruptive behavior in their reserved space. As in, it won't be tolerated, and if you're the offending straight person, you'll be escorted out.

The court isn't making a decision on whether folks have more, or less rights. The court is recognizing that I cannot force you to express an opinion via your work that you don't support. Much as a gay baker wouldn't likely complete a cake advocating say, congrats on your homo reeducation camp graduation, I doubt the court would find for the religious dolt who asked for it.

At some point though, we have to recognize that the answer isn't government using force to demand that either the religious baker, or the gay baker could be forced to provide a service that they both find abhorrent.

So, neither does a Christian, or a gay Christian, or a non religious gay person have inherently any more, or less rights in our society than anyone else. And the continued demand from gay activists who insist that those evil Christian folks must rejoice in their happiness is no different. I have lived long enough to understand that my personal life is mine. It isn't for public consumption, and of course, I don't expect anyone to do things for me that they wouldn't do for others and vice versa. I find that works pretty well. But for some, militancy is all they know.

 

No, yet again, the only thing the court is saying with this ruling is that the bakery was not guilty of discrimination. The courts are saying absolutely nothing else. And again, I'm entirely in agreement with the ruling in this case.

You brought up "deeply held beliefs" and I am stating that the laws as written, certainly in the UK and probably elsewhere too, don't say anything about "deeply held beliefs" at all - it doesn't make any difference if a business owner is (or claims to be) acting on the basis of "deeply held beliefs" or not, their actions determine whether they're breaking the discrimination laws or not.

 

It is but it's not providing the service (any more) because the customers broke the agreed rules, not because they're "conservative". Loads of "conservatives" continue to use those sites without issue and not all of the users/groups removed are "conservative".

 

That sign provides zero legal protection. Im not sure how you think they would know who is gay or straight and who they would escort out, but I have been to lesbian bars and they have been nothing but nice to me. There was no mens room, so I had to use the restroom at the male gay bar next door. They bent over backwards to make me feel welcome! (Just a little humor!)

The baker would do nothing more or less than he would do for a straight customer. The court is absolutely deciding on who gets more rights as long as laws protect Christians from discrimination due to their beliefs. Remove that protection and you have equality.

 

then you are allowing one belief over another.

 

Homosexual behavior occurs in nature. Homosexuality is purely a human invention.

 

Because I agree that a muslim cab driver should be free to not offer services to people with alcohol?
Or because I feel that the cab company should be free to fire them if they aren't making enough money?

 

I actually support the decision, I just don't think religion is relevant.

I agree it isn't about refusing to serve, but I disagree about the religious aspect. You should be able to choose which work you do regardless of religion.

 

I asked you, how was it removed because the history is fascinating. Can you name a single scientific study they cited? Just one? Let me help you, there wasn't. Not a single study was ever cited. Homosexuals had stolen the mailing lists and were harassing members by mail long before the vote. They also stormed the meeting right before the vote to intimidate and harass. Of course its obvious you didn't have a clue on the history of that vote or the lack of science behind it. You simply accepted it as gospel because it supported your agenda. Sad but predictable.

I could care less how many friends you have that are gay. It doesn't change the science.

Do you really think just because you've had personal interaction with a handful of gays that invalidates countless scientific studies of homosexuals? Are you really that anti science?

Cannibalism also occurs in nature. That doesn't make it genetic either. A weak and predictable argument that has failed time and time again. I'm disappointed its this easy.

Once again your personal connections have nothing to do with the science or the studies I provided that you keep running from.

Try to be honest enough to read them and admit the countless mental deficiencies homosexuals face that make it a mental disorder by definition.

Wrong again. This cake was for a specific wedding that a Christian has a religious objection to participating in.

Your fake definition of preferred citizen has no legal baring no matter how many times you repeat it.

Its not equality. Its forcing someone's beliefs onto someone else when the very protection of religious freedom is actually spelled out in the Constitution unlike homosexuality. You have yet to admit that reality. Why do you keep running from it?

Too bad for you religion is already protected by the Constitution and homosexuality is not so your personal request is irrelevant to the law once again.

Its not more rights is enforcing existing rights over a sexual preference not listed in the Constitution.

You simply cannot deal with the reality that homosexuality does not exist as a right in the Constitution can you? What do you think you gain by denying reality over and over again?[/quote]

 

One belief is protected in the Constitution while homosexuality is not. Join reality.

 

ok, i must have misread your previous post after reading your 1st sentence.

i am against using religion not to serve people.

 

discrimination is illegal, certainly due to sexual orientation.