 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Musket Date: 20 May 15 - 08:39 AM Keith A of Hertford said that supporting marriage as being between a man and a woman is a legitimate view. It may be a view but like rape, robbery and fraud it is a view that society has set rules to protect people from. A cake pointing out the right of people to carry out their lives normally is not only legitimate but in the context of Northern Ireland, which has politicians coming out with the most amazingly sick religious bigotry, it is also needed to point out that bigotry is not needed, wanted or necessary in a progressive society. Look on the bright side. Being where it is, you could easily be reading of a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a catholic marrying a protestant. In case anyone hasn't noticed, men can marry men, women can marry women, blacks can marry whites and disabled people can marry non disabled people in any gender mix you want. I'm fed up of God botherers saying people with a disability that precludes getting pregnant shouldn't be able to marry. I sincerely hope their appeal bankrupts them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 May 15 - 08:45 AM "Jim, gay marriage was considered an affront to public decency until recently." As was the natural fact of being gay - in fact, up to comparatively recently it was a punishable criminal offence and there are those who wish that was still the case - just as there are those who would with to return to capital punishment, dog-fighting and bear-baiting. The present campaign seeks to close an anomaly in the law and, not surprisingly, much of the opposition is generated by celibate mystics who would retain the right they have had to instruct us on how we should behave in our own beds. "Why is it an affront to public decency if siblings seek to marry?" Incest is historically one of the great taboos of society for all sorts of reasons, cultural and practical. I have to say, I find this discussion more and more revealing the longer it goes on - pity we're going to have to nip it in the bud for fear of closing yet another thread- unless that is your wish, of course!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: GUEST Date: 20 May 15 - 08:46 AM What if the cake had been for the National Man/Boy Love Association, with a slogan advocating abolition of age of consent laws? Would that change anything? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Ed T Date: 20 May 15 - 08:52 AM ""Why is it an affront to public decency if siblings seek to marry?"" Could it be that some of the offsprings may become public nuisances and annoying to others, clogging up chatlines with dinosaurian opinions (not carbon dating that one) -that may seem contrary to logic? Disclaimer: Just speculating, with no person in mind), since it was asked. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Ed T Date: 20 May 15 - 08:54 AM "What if the cake had been for the National Man/Boy Love Association, with a slogan advocating abolition of age of consent laws? " But, it clearly wasn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 May 15 - 08:55 AM I'm sorry, Keith, but If you continue to cherrypick points from my posts then you are degrading this conversation, for reasons best known to yourself. I made a very clear contrast between child marriage and marriage in terms of a lot more than illegality. The central issue concerning the cake is that there is a campaign to legalise gay marriage. There are no such moves to legalise child marriage. Gay marriage hurts no-one and makes the partners happy. Child marriage is abusive, exploitative and Indecent. Why don't you demonstrate to us that you can actually see the difference instead of pretending to be some kind of idiotic devil's advocate? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Dave the Gnome Date: 20 May 15 - 08:56 AM Dave, The judge seemed to say that it was only an offence if motivated by the will to discriminate against gay people. He was claiming to know what was in their heads. They denied that was in their heads. The judge weighed the evidence and believed one party over another. That is what judges do. They make judgements. She was there, neither you or I were. She heard all the evidence and decided in favour of the plaintiff. Good enough for me. Gay marriage is illegal where this happened. No it isn't. It is unlawful but not, as far as I know, subject to any criminal prosecution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 May 15 - 08:57 AM Child marriage and gay marriage is what I meant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 May 15 - 09:04 AM The minimum age rules for marriage in Spain will be the same as in most other European countries by July. The age of consent is also being raised. Perhaps if someone in that country had baked a cake campaigning for it to be raised it would have been raised sooner. Maybe they tried to, but it is a very religious country.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: GUEST Date: 20 May 15 - 09:25 AM Would it be acceptable to decorate a cake with the image of prophet Mohammed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 May 15 - 09:29 AM It would be legal in this country. It would be illegal to physically attack someone for doing it. I can't imagine there being much demand. Still. Your somewhat mischievous line of questioning gets a straight answer, whether it deserves it or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 May 15 - 09:29 AM The cake was for a private event to commemorate a significant date in the gay Calendar - describing it as part of a campaign is not unlike describing Christmas as part of a Christian campaign, or Thanksgiving an American campaign. As it happens, it doesn't matter - it was discrimination and was judged to be just that - a fact that should be cause for celebration and not 'back-to-the-good-old-days' bickering. Hopefully, Friday will show another giant step for mankind (and womankind, of course) Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Mo the caller Date: 20 May 15 - 10:01 AM I'm with Joe on this one. They weren't discriminating against a person. They didn't say the wouldn't make a cake. But the slogan went against their beliefs. No law should force you to violate your convictions though it might tell you how you can express them. Trouble is, your/my religion might be my/your blasphemy; my/your right to choose might be your/my anathema. A minefield. Personally I don't think the law should tell you how to live your life, or how to run your business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 20 May 15 - 10:06 AM cakes for promoting Beastiality marriage and Necrophila marriage...??? there.. saved GUEST the trouble of scratching his/her head for more daft exaggerated provocative examples...😜 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Ed T Date: 20 May 15 - 10:09 AM A good one, punkfolkrocker, LOL. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 20 May 15 - 10:21 AM yeah... at risk of over-egging the cake... If I wanted to marry my gay dead disabled brother.... and his dog [most of which is actually factually true] I think I'd get our old mum to dust off the cake tin and give it go... Would save a lot of aggro....😜 Gawd.. imagine if we actually could marry, then decided to try to adopt a kid...!!!???😬 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Ed T Date: 20 May 15 - 10:26 AM Gay marriage getting your goat? man marries goat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 May 15 - 10:51 AM Your religion and your right to choose is inviolably yours. Your right to restrict the rights of others is severely compromised by the obstinate fact that we all live in very mixed societies. You might want to force your religious views on other people or prevent them from expressing theirs. You might be trying to stop them from living in a way that has been arbitrarily and unsupportably condemned by authority figures such as holy men. The cake shop was perpetuating unfair and bigoted discrimination on grounds of religion. If the refusal was not, as some here claimed, discrimination against the customer, then matters in one respect are even more serious: it's discrimination against a notion that strives for justice for victims of bigotry. The cake in itself is a tiny matter in the scheme of things but the issue it represents is huge. A good outcome means progress towards justice for gay people. And, frankly, anyone in today's world who shouts "blasphemy!" is someone who parted company from me, metaphorically speaking, a long time ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Dave the Gnome Date: 20 May 15 - 10:52 AM Mo - The judge said they were discriminating against a person. On what grounds do you disagree with the judge? At the risk of repeating myself none of us were there while the judge was. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Bill D Date: 20 May 15 - 11:09 AM So many theoretical issues.... The case was 'decided' in court, which obviously didn't solve the issue. It was one judge's opinion. Another judge might have taken Joe Offer's position. Me? I think the baker should have just offered to sell a blank cake and a decorating kit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Greg F. Date: 20 May 15 - 11:12 AM So Joe, Gnu, et. al.: If I "believe" that interracial marriage is wrong, I can discriminate against people on that basis? If I "believe" that Catholics are part of a Papal Plot to take over the world, I can discriminate on thet basis, too? What if I "believe" that Jews bear a collective responsibility for the killing of Christ I can refuse them service? Discrimination is discrimination despite the pretext one chooses to use to justify it. And its wrong. Period. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Greg F. Date: 20 May 15 - 11:15 AM No law should force you to violate your convictions Even if your "convictions" are wrong? So if I "believe" that Black folks are congenitally inferior.......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Musket Date: 20 May 15 - 11:27 AM Err.. We are talking marriage in Northern Ireland. If my husband and I, who were married in the Netherlands and live in Scotland are in Northern Ireland, as we were last year, we are a married couple there, recognised as such and every bit as legitimate as in any other EU country, including those that do not carry out the ceremony, such as, till later this week, Eire. To say what next, marry your dog? is rather sick. I am married. Does anybody have any issue with that? Perhaps it a legitimate view to say I don't recognise Joe Offer's marriage, or Keith A of Hertford's marriage? I don't though. I recognise their marriage and hope they recognise mine. It is the least anybody can ask of society, a little word called respect. I think the bakery is a business. That has a legal status. It means undertaking to work within the law. The judge saw this. Bill, your post above is awful. Perhaps Hallmark cards should just sell blank cards and a felt tip to inter racial couples who need cards? How about a selection that disabled people must only buy from? If being in business goes against your beliefs, don't offer goods or services to the public because equality laws say, quite rightly that you offer goods or services irrespective of gender, race, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation. I have problems seeing how this thread is even debatable? Have those who support the bakery's stance thought about what they are supporting? The right to discriminate on the basis of religion. Religion that is protected from discrimination by the same laws. Nowhere does it say you can discriminate because your imaginary friend tells you to. Wicked old men in frocks are telling you to... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Bill D Date: 20 May 15 - 11:45 AM "Bill, your post above is awful" I should have posted a pic of my tongue stuck firmly in my cheek.... My REAL problem is, that with my history of philosophy & logic, I see all the sub-themes and implications of most positions. I do NOT 'like' the position the bakery took, and I would personally boycott it and buy cakes from more reasonable businesses. I just don't see an easy way to navigate all the byways of possible scenarios various people have mentioned. The courts have a lot to do besides adjudicating cases of morality in cake decorating. Now if the bakery put samples of their art in the window advocating anti-gay themes or hate speech, I would think they SHOULD be taken to court. I do believe that there are many bakeries that would happily fill the order... and more power to THEM! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 May 15 - 11:48 AM The US and the UK are constitutionally very different. In the US there is federal law and there is also state law. State laws differ from each other. Neither federal law nor any state law have the same statutory provisions about equality and about discrimination as the UK does. US commentators may have views about what UK law SHOULD be, but unless they have specifically addressed the relevant UK law their comments are unlikely to illuminate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 May 15 - 11:50 AM http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents. The provisions of EU law, and of the ECHR insofar as implemented in the UK or where the UK law is not fully clear may also be relevant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 May 15 - 12:13 PM "No law should force you to violate your convictions" Pretty well covered by Greg's response as far as I'm concerned. An interesting dilemma in respect to another piece of medievalism that was partially dealt with following the death of a young woman who died as a result of being denied a pregnancy termination due largely to religious pressures. In the light of this event, the government was forced to tinker with the laws forbidding all forms of termination - still some way behind the rest of the 'civilised' world. Despite the change of law, there has been pressure to exempt some doctors because of their religious beliefs. It seems to me that people holding such beliefs should not be allowed to be doctors - it's not hard to imagine a hard-pressed hospital having to carry out a life-saving termination because there are not enough doctors on hand prepared to carry one out. If they can't guarantee to do their job they shouldn't be employed - pretty much like not putting a Jehovah's Witness in charge of a blood-bank. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Fergie Date: 20 May 15 - 12:15 PM In the European Union there are fundamental laws that make it an offence to discriminate against people on the basis of: gender, religious creed, ethnic background, race, skin-colour, marriage status, sexual-orientation. There is also a category of laws around the issue of hate speech and incitement to hatred. It is against the law to discriminate against a person for being gay, but in general (within reason) it is not against the law to discriminate on the basis of one political background. It is also fundamental to understanding this case that the bakery in question initially accepted the order for the cake, but later informed the customer that the bakery had changed it's mind and now was refusing to process the order on the basis that for religious reasons they would not make a cake that had anything to do with homosexuals. It was this combination of factors that brought the judge to the conclusion that the bakery was discriminating against the customer on the basis of sexual-orientation and was therefore attempting to put itself above the law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 20 May 15 - 12:47 PM Being serious for a few seconds... My recently deceased sibling was a militant gay & disabled rights activist. Strongly involved in various campaign groups and local authority disabled access & services liaison committees. As much as we shared very similar values and political views, we weren't that close due to sibling friction & personality clash.. Sibling was a person who was troubled and difficult to get along with, and inclined to be obnoxiously over zealous when confronting real or imagined discrimination. I can't help wondering how much a less antagonistic overcompensating personality would have made a more effective campaigner ? I just don't know. Maybe sibling was exactly the right kind of uncompromising personality to get the job done properly ??? Certainly not the kind of person for a bigoted cake shop to get in a fight with !!! Sibling would definitely applaud this well won legal victory. [sorry to over use the impersonal term 'sibling', but I'm still over cautious about giving away too much real identifying personal info] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Ebbie Date: 20 May 15 - 01:10 PM "Nice of Joe Offer to liken gay people to Nazis." A couple of Mudcatters were offended by Joe O's simile. Joe doesn't need my defending him but his stance is easily understood when one takes literally what he said: (paraphrased) Going by what would offend me, I can understand the offense taken by others. I have long done the same using cigarette smoking as an example. If I want to understand addiction -of whatever stripe - all I need do is remember how difficult it was for me to quit smoking. Then I can understand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link Date: 20 May 15 - 01:21 PM I agree that if the order was initially accepted, it makes a later refusal more difficult , but I understand the decision was afterwards taken on ethical Christian principles by management, who may not have been present when the order was accepted by the shop worker ......admittedly conjecture, ..but a probable scenario. As others have said, and ashers also asserted, the discrimination was about the message, not the customer. I have heard that the b an b owners finally won their appeal, and I hope asshurs do too. Of course, it may come to the state where Christians will either dilute their convictions, or go out of business, but till such time, they are entitled to contest such rulings by all lawful means. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Amos Date: 20 May 15 - 01:29 PM Joe's point is quite strong except for the change that occurs when you install yourself in a place of business open to the public. In any case making your conscience up to refuse another's happiness is a pretty dismal state of affairs in an individual, methinks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Musket Date: 20 May 15 - 01:58 PM Ebbie. It is difficult to change what makes you what you are. If I had been brought up to believe some people were inferior or that my adherence to a superstition precludes my being objective, I'd possibly try to reconcile what I thought to be morally right with what others think it to be too. I don't expect people to understand my attraction to my husband nor indeed my earlier boyfriends. In the same way I don't have those feelings towards women. Don't get me wrong, I was led to believe I was abnormal and at university I started chatting up women to see if I might "grow out of it" I didn't because I am me. (I am what I am, if you want the stereotype.) The anger I feel and from reading posts, that another Musket has also expressed is that Joe Offer wishes to be taken seriously. If that is the case, I would be mocking him by making allowances. Keith A of Hertford on the other hand doesn't exhibit such intelligence so his awful comments can be dismissed. It is when otherwise credible people come out with what they did that makes me shake my head. Bill. If we could see each other. I'd see your tongue in cheek but we can't. I know only too well that posts can be taken literally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Long Firm Freddie Date: 20 May 15 - 01:58 PM The full judgment in the case is given here: Judgment LFF |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Joe Offer Date: 20 May 15 - 02:07 PM Musket: Nice of Joe Offer to liken gay people to Nazis. There's quite a difference there. And again: Joe says he sides with the bakery for that reason. But distinctions like these are clearly lost to those single-minded souls who cannot understand any perspective but their own. So, in winning a lawsuit against the baker, did the plaintiff gain any supporters for the cause of gay marriage? And most specifically, did the plaintiff convert the baker into a supporter of gay marriage? I think that the battle for legal recognition of gay marriage will soon be won in most of the the Western world. The goal now should be to win the hearts and minds of people so that gay marriage comes to be considered to be completely acceptable and normal in our society. That will take time and patience - just as it has taken time and patience for interracial marriage to become acceptable, long after it became legal. Winning lawsuits creates enemies - you'll never make a person into a friend or supporter by winning a lawsuit against him. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 May 15 - 02:13 PM Maybe not, Joe -- But if one must always wait until one has won one's adversary's 'heart & mind', then I fear it might now & again result in rather a long wait... Meanwhile, the cake might have got a trifle stale. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 May 15 - 02:13 PM Discriminating against gay people is wrong and unlawful, but the bakers deny they did. The judge thought they did, but judges are fallible Dave and this one had only the same evidence that we have. They did not refuse to supply a cake. That would be discrimination. They did refuse to create a campaign slogan for a cause they do not support. That is not discrimination. You are allowed to do that. Creating propaganda material for causes is not an accepted part of a baker's trade. That is what they were asked to do, and the request could have been made by a straight customer so refusing was not discrimination. Of course Joe did not compare gay people to Nazis. The suggestion is pure malice. He chose Nazism as an example of something we all disapprove of, so we could put ourselves in the place of someone asked to produce campaign material for something we disagree with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 May 15 - 02:27 PM Whatever the legal situation here (and I'm biased so I like what the judge decided), once again we have the depressing situation in this thread of bigotry being staunchly defended. The people in the cake shop may not like the notion of gay marriage, but they are wrong and the world is leaving them behind. They are fully entitled to go home and simmer about it but they are not entitled to behave in this hurtful manner. They deserve all the flak they get if they proceed to appeal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Joe Offer Date: 20 May 15 - 02:32 PM By the way, I generally do not patronize businesses that advertise themselves as "Christian," because using religion as a sales promotion gimmick makes me gag (and because those who advertise their "Christianity" are generally not in accord with my view of what Christianity should be); and I certainly do not patronize any business known to support causes I consider to be oppressive. I do shop at WalMart, though. Hell, nobody's perfect.... -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: olddude Date: 20 May 15 - 02:46 PM Well I could not disagree with the baker more fully, however, I have had clients that I refused because.. Well they we assholes that I didn't want to get involved with. Had nothing to do with any beliefs other than they were known assholes with a track record of shady business transactions. A business should have the right to refuse anyone at anytime because you can always go elsewhere |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 May 15 - 02:53 PM The people in the cake shop may not like the notion of gay marriage, but they are wrong and the world is leaving them behind. It is our opinion that they are wrong, but they are entitled to their opinion. No-one can be forced to make campaign material for a cause they disavow. Would you do it Steve? Should you be criminalised for refusing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: GUEST,John P Date: 20 May 15 - 02:56 PM Are these Christians stupid? If they succeed in making it legal to discriminate on religious grounds, it will be perfectly legal (or at least logical) to discriminate against Christians. Why are they taking legal action without thinking the issue through to the next question that naturally occurs, and being appalled by the answer? Joe, I admire you greatly, but you're wrong on this one. You are promoting legal discrimination. You haven't answered the question about whether or not businesses should be legally permitted to refuse service to black people. Where do you draw the line with discrimination? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 May 15 - 02:57 PM "Discriminating against gay people is wrong and unlawful, but the bakers deny they did." And were found guilty of doing so - so it's a hypothetical statement "but judges are fallible " Especially when they come up with the 'wrong' decision Accused people tend to tell lies. "They did refuse to create a campaign slogan for a cause they do not support." Wi;dly inaccurate again "Mr Lee, a member of the LGBT advocacy group Queer Space, had wanted a cake featuring Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie with the slogan Support Gay Marriage for a private function marking International Anti Homophobia Day." "That is not discrimination." Yes it is and it was found to be. "Creating propaganda material for causes is not an accepted part of a baker's trade." Taking customers orders is in whatever shape or form as long as it is within their capabilities and conforms to law and decency. "Of course Joe did not compare gay people to Nazis" Yes he did "The suggestion is pure malice." No it isn't "He chose Nazism as an example of something we all disapprove of," You are now putting words in his mouth to defend the indefensible - it was, at very best, an appalling choice of words, typical of homophic but certainly nothing I would have associated with Joe - before now. "so we could put ourselves in the place of someone asked to produce campaign material for something we disagree with." They were not asked to produce campaign material, they were asked to bake a cake for a private function - the customer specified exactly what was wanted and they refused - simple as that. The facts of the case state quite clearly that they refused the order because they disapproved of the customer's sexual orientation - the culprit admitted the same and was found guilty of discrimination for having done so. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Greg F. Date: 20 May 15 - 02:58 PM I likened my disdain for neo-Nazis to the disdain someone else might have for gay marriage. There's a reason - or rather many reasons- to "disdain" Nazis. What's the excuse for "disdaining" gay marriage? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 20 May 15 - 02:59 PM ok.. I've stopped being serious... sort of... what if... err.. what if a baker agreed to do the job but refused to accept the customer's desired artwork for fear of contravening Sesame Street character ownership copyright. Seriously, how much more farcial could the situation get if the gay couple could now be remotely at risk of being sued by Sesame St !!!???😬 That's the trouble, problems can escalate when lawyers and media start getting involved in a petty, but politically symbolic dispute...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Greg F. Date: 20 May 15 - 03:00 PM A business should have the right to refuse anyone at anytime Dan, I don't want to get into a pissing contest, but surely you don't actually believe it would be OK for a restaurant to refuse to serve black folks? Or white folks, for that matter? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: GUEST,Howard Jones Date: 20 May 15 - 03:05 PM It isn't against the law to discriminate against assholes. However there are other categories who it illegal to discriminate against. If you are in business and providing a service to the public the law requires you to behave in a number of ways. One of them is not to discriminate on certain grounds. If that puts you in conflict with your personal beliefs you might find that difficult, but you should set those beliefs aside in order to comply with the law. If you find that too difficult, then you should find another way of earning a living. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 May 15 - 03:07 PM Agreed, Greg. Or to refuse to admit women. Keith, for fuck's sake read the Act, then you might stop talking shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 May 15 - 03:08 PM Who is disdaining gay marriage Greg? Like many people, the bakers believe that marriage should remain only for people not closely related, conforming to the local age restriction and of opposite sex. They are entitled to that view, and should not be forced by anti-discrimination law to produce campaign material for a cause they disavow. They did not refuse to make and decorate a cake, only to turn it into a piece of propaganda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 May 15 - 03:12 PM Richard, does the Act really make it illegal for a baker to refuse to supply campaign materials just because they are in cake form? If it does it is an ass. |