loraward Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 You really are all missing the point. Why don't you ask yourself what would Jesus have done. He was asked the question about paying tax and the answer he gave was give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's. In other words obey the law of the land and pay what is due to Caesar. In this case the couple were discriminating which was against the law. But they would have also refused to make the cake for me and you and anyone else asking for such a cake, what would they have been guilty of in that case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 gets popcorn and waits http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3129625/Mother-is-denied-pill-by-Muslim-pharmacist.html did this shop get sued Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 gets popcorn and waits http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3129625/Mother-is-denied-pill-by-Muslim-pharmacist.html did this shop get sued If she had been gay she could have complained and might have won some compensation. Apparently the religious can refuse service on the grounds of their religion as long as they don't refuse to serve a gay person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 gets popcorn and waits http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3129625/Mother-is-denied-pill-by-Muslim-pharmacist.html did this shop get sued It's not really a relevant example though - on what grounds were the two women discriminated against? If, for example, the pharmacists had refused to sell them dental dams because they were lesbians, or contraception because they were unmarried, then that would be discriminatory. Choosing not to supply certain items to anyone/everyone isn't discriminatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloke Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 If she had been gay she could have complained and might have won some compensation. Apparently the religious can refuse service on the grounds of their religion as long as they don't refuse to serve a gay person. If she had been gay she probably wouldn't be wanting a morning-after pill anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 If she had been gay she could have complained and might have won some compensation. Apparently the religious can refuse service on the grounds of their religion as long as they don't refuse to serve a gay person. If she'd been gay, she'd have hardly needed the morning after pill. If the pharmacist had discriminated against her because of her gender, race, sexuality, ability/disability, etc, then that would have been discrimination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 If she'd been gay, she'd have hardly needed the morning after pill. She might have been raped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 She might have been raped. Wow, you're special. You're right, she might have been. But again, the pharmacist isn't discriminating against her as s/he would refuse to supply that medication to everyone. Thereby, not discriminating. Do you get it yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 If the pharmacist had discriminated against her because of her gender, race, sexuality, ability/disability, etc, then that would have been discrimination But he didn't, he just didn't want to sell the morning after pill and cake maker didn't want to sell a cake with the words, "support gay marriage", they would have refused to sell it to me and would have sold a cake to a gay person if it didn't have those words on it. There was no discrimination, just people following their religious beliefs. ---------- Post added 19-05-2015 at 22:57 ---------- Wow, you're special. You're right, she might have been. But again, the pharmacist isn't discriminating against her as s/he would refuse to supply that medication to everyone. Thereby, not discriminating. Do you get it yet? Yes I get it but do you get it that the cake maker would have refused to sell the cake to everyone, therefor not discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Yes I get it but do you get it that the cake maker would have refused to sell the cake to everyone, therefor not discrimination. Have you read the judgement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now