Plain Talker Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I'm non-Christian, and I pretty much share your perspective on this Jimmy. Forcing people who hold views you don't like, to conform to your own standards of behaviour; is not the wisest course of action. It will only serve to breed resentment, more distrust, more dislike; between the parties involved. It won't actually affect real change, where it matters, in people's hearts and minds. Also, I don't understand how gay bashing is wrong, but religious bashing is okay? (which some people do tend to do around here) My bold Being gay does not necessarily equate with being a prat. Gay bashing is being a prat, and a prize prat at that Some people seem to become professional prats when they adopt a religion. I have no problem with people being of any religion (or none, as they choose). I have no problem with people being gay, straight or pansexual, should they so wish. Neither do I have any wish to stand in their way and prevent them exercising that free choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 That is the case, this particular point isn't a subjective matter. If I physically make something that is used to help promote a cause I am helping to promote that cause. Yes then, they're helping to promote a cause in an abstract, not really supporting sort of way I still think they're wrong to take the line they have, and fortunately so does the judiciary. It's as if you didn't read my last post at all! Stay on target! It's not about whether people who see the cake know who baked it, that's not the point at all. The point is they would have had to physically provide support for the cause of promoting something which they strongly disagree with. Well, compromise is one of the costs of living in a civilised society. They still have a choice of whether the stick to their convictions or not. I really hope they take it further than that, I do not like the precedent set by this ruling at all. It's the only possible ruling in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) When the cause is equal rights for homosexuals, isn't not supporting it tantamount to discrimination against homosexuals? I guess this is the view the court took. I doubt that, considering this happened in Northern Ireland, where homosexuals are not allowed to marry. So actually, the bakery were being asked to bake a cake promoting something that not only do they strongly oppose, but also is not currently legal where they live. NB I do agree that homosexuals not being allowed to marry is discriminatory against them, and fully support gay marriage myself. ---------- Post added 19-05-2015 at 16:30 ---------- It's the only possible ruling in this case. Open your mind man, you like me know so few facts of the case you can't be that certain. ---------- Post added 19-05-2015 at 16:32 ---------- Yes then, they're helping to promote a cause in an abstract, not really supporting sort of way It's not abstract at all, I'm talking about physically making a cake that promotes a cause, like I've said twice now! It couldn't be any less abstract, I'm not talking about perceptions, I'm talking about actually using your hands to physically do something. Edited May 19, 2015 by flamingjimmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Literal incitements to violence, a little less grey then. Even if I produced trays of cakes saying kill all the Tories surely it can't be that much of incitement? It's on a cake FFS!! Surely the medium used must have a bearing on how much seriousness you can put into a perceived incitement to violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Even if I produced trays of cakes saying kill all the Tories surely it can't be that much of incitement? It's on a cake FFS!! Surely the medium used must have a bearing on how much seriousness you can put into a perceived incitement to violence. Dammit! Drawing lines is hard, help me out guys there has to be one somewhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Dammit! Drawing lines is hard, help me out guys there has to be one somewhere! Back to grey areas again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Back to grey areas again! Ok, but can we at least define the edges of the grey areas or is it all just a blurry mess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Ok, but can we at least define the edges of the grey areas or is it all just a blurry mess? Maybe we've discovered why these things end up going to court and being argued over by two legal teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) Not at all, the business and their personal beliefs are mutually exclusive, there is no connection other than one they have mistakenly (or incorrectly IMV) made. Again, does a persons belief outweigh the right of another person not be to abused/discrimiated against? I'd say not. Separating the person from their beliefs isn't possible, their beliefs make them the person they are and influence every aspect of their life. They can't simply turn them off because they choose to go to work or run a business. No one was abused and yes someone should be able to refuse to do a job for someone else. ---------- Post added 19-05-2015 at 17:01 ---------- So how would you enforce the law then in relation to discrimination then?[/quotegly We are talking about baking a cake for goodness sake. Get things into proportion. I am sure other bakers would have baked one for them and included the slogan. Why didn't they go to an homosexual baker if they felt so strongly about such matters and realised others did not agree with them ? Because they set out to make a point. Edited May 19, 2015 by loraward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) Open your mind man, you like me know so few facts of the case you can't be that certain. The ruling seems to centre around the business as the entity making the cake, not the employee's of that business. It's not abstract at all, I'm talking about physically making a cake that promotes a cause, like I've said twice now! It couldn't be any less abstract, I'm not talking about perceptions, I'm talking about actually using your hands to physically do something. They are not directly promoting the cause, the're helping someone else do it by providing a service. The business is not a religious organisation, it exists to make profit. As a business that is not a religious organisation, they have no right to discriminate based on their religious convictions. Edited May 19, 2015 by Magilla 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