BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 15 - 11:58 AM

btw... The "they have other gay customers" line of defence argument...

what complete spurious bollocks..

The cake shop is a business - they're in it for the money.. any money !!!

the pink £££$$$ are worth just as much as anyone else's to a baker's profit margin...

Course, that's not to say a truly homophobic christian baker wouldn't put on disposable gloves
at the sight of a potentially gay customer entering the shop;
then as soon as the customer leaves with the cakes,
mutter a prayer and spray 'n' wipe the cash with Dettol..

just to be on the safe side......😜

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:25 PM

gay cake sounds nice.

when we were students we used to load swiss roll with cannabis. i don't know about gay, but it made us all pretty happy.

when i was living to gether with the lady who became my wife. neither pair of parents would enter the house we were living in. i'm not sure what you can do about moral outrage. some people live in the past, and its not that long ago homosexuality was made legal - particularly the case in NI, I believe. Jim would know.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:28 PM

Well, at least no one raised the disgustingly suggestive "spotted dick".
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:31 PM

So if you're in business to make money you have to do whatever anyone with money tells you to do? You can't impose any limits as to what you're willing to do?

What if the customer wants you to write "Kill the pigs" on a cake? What if they want anchovies on the cake?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:36 PM

what if .... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz😴


"So if you're in business to make money you have to do whatever anyone with money tells you to do?
You can't impose any limits as to what you're willing to do?"

I'll tell you my limits if you tell me yours...😘

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:38 PM

"No discrimination occurred."
Sighhhhhh
They refused to accept an order for a cake displaying a support for gay rights - that is discrimination
They did not, as you suggested, refuse to create that slogan - the order was specific and hey refused it on religious grounds -that is discrimination
"No discrimination occurred.
"No discrimination occurred. - They have not been proven guilty. "
Are you completely insane?
GUILTY OF DISCRIMINATION
"Someone should explain that to her honour the judge"
Perhaps you should explan that to us - so far you have only said "judges can make mistakes" and "the bakers denied it"
Do you really belive yourself to know more than the judge and do you think you can get away with such a claim without even bothering to explain your case?
Sorry Keith - you appear to have flipped.

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:50 PM

This is reminiscent of the lunatic aylum,technically discrimination occurred, but the whole thing is so laughable, the judge is a pillock, he was technically right ,but anyone with any sense would have made a judgement such as this, yes technically discrimination, damages cost of baking cake to the gay couple,costs to be split between the two sides , with a reminder not to be bringing such trivial cases to court.
Shimrod hit the nail on the head with his postSubject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Shimrod - PM
Date: 21 May 15 - 04:22 AM

Threads like this remind me how introverted and self-obsessed our species has become! The biosphere is dying folks. We've de-stabilised the climate and we're living through the greatest extinction event for 65 million years. The ice caps are melting and the oceans are acidifying and are full of our litter. Top-soils are eroding away, due to intensive agriculture, and many of our key 'bread baskets' are getting drier and drier. Meanwhile our populations continue grow out of control: all a recipe for a 'perfect storm'. Deadly conflicts rage in many parts of the world with resource depletion and climate change a possible cause in many of them; there's an increasing possibility that at least one of these conflicts could go nuclear.

And we obsess about a fucking cake!! Jesus!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 21 May 15 - 12:57 PM

Who would want a cake made by a bigot anyway. Who knows what he would put in the batter. Better to go elsewhere and then write an article in the paper about why you should not go there. Get some friends to picket the place. He will be out of business quick. I don't like laws forcing issues like this. Most laws are good and fight against discrimination. I am not sure a cake law would solve much

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 15 - 01:07 PM

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear cakes, shall not be infringed"...😜

Perhaps this court case could have been better resolved
with a massive televised custard pie fight ???

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 01:18 PM

" I am not sure a cake law would not solve much"

Reminds me of way, way back, and those who couldn't understand why Rosa Parks would not wish to sit in the back of the bus, where 75% of people "of her kind" sat-and projected that "bus laws" would not solve much.

When you are not the one discriminated against and feels the injustice - standing up for your rights could seem trivial.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 May 15 - 01:26 PM

was i right Jim? Ihad an idea that homosexuality was illegal longer in NI than it was in England.
How log has it been legal over there?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: DMcG
Date: 21 May 15 - 01:32 PM

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 - PM
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.


More to the point, would it be illegal to refuse to do it? As I understand this ruling, yes it would. You might try the defence that your were trying to avoid incitement, but you would be the one taking all the legal (and physical) risks.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 May 15 - 01:32 PM

Ed, There is a massive difference between the two cases, if you seriously think this case will make any difference to discrimination against gay people you are in my opinion very much mistaken, this case is trivial, the bus law case was not.
there is an important referendum on gay rights due to take place in ireland very soon, it is important the cake is not.
anyone bothering to talk about the irish referendum, no ,you are wasting time on this trivial cake, talk about tilting at windmills

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:03 PM

I disagree with your assessment GSS.

Regardless, while trivial to some (and, many who dont like gays obtaining basic rights that main stream folks have enjoyed for many years) , it certainly was important for those involved.

Only the future holds the truth for just how important these two cases could be to stimulate gays tobstand up for their rights in court-the main arena where change happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:31 PM

Jim,
They refused to accept an order for a cake displaying a support for gay rights - that is discrimination

Against who?
The cake?
The did not discriminate because they would refuse it for anyone gay or straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: CupOfTea
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:34 PM

I think both the bakers and the customers made foolish choices and the escalation of this to a court case was not something that did any good for either viewpoint. It irks me to the bone every time "discrimination" is trotted out as the foul deed done someone. I remember when "having discriminating taste" was an asset, and meant merely that one could make good and educated choices when informed of facts.

What KIND of discrimination happens can be for a range of reasons from sensible to bigoted, with a very large grey area between points on that continuum. I see those who use Christianity as their reason to oppose gay marriage (or homosexuality as a whole)as being very wrong. I'm going to avoid them, boycott their businesses - my own discrimination. I can't change or legislate a shift in the thinking of "true believers" but think that encouraging the ideas I believe in (like marriage equality for gays) helps swell the tide of public opinion, so they're going to be swimming against that tide. Yet, I support their right to hold to their opinion, and to live their lives and earn their living in a way that they find ethical.

As a straight person who commissioned a very pricy wedding anniversary cake for a gay couple I love, from a straight, Catholic, brilliant cake artist, I had the sense to offer options in the commission that resulted in no one being offended, and everyone delighted with the portfolio-worthy result. While I employed someone who was definitely a cake artist, and the bakery in this contentious case may not have risen to that level, I believe an artist, or artisan, should have the right to decline a commission. I don't see that "offering my services to the public" means that the public gets to dictate that I MUST do something that violates my own ethics. Heck *I* would have declined this as I don't find reproducing licensed characters ethical (as punkfolkrocker pointed out about the Sesame Street Characters).

There are better ways of fighting bigotry than being litigious over minor issues. In the US, we'd say "don't make a Federal case out of it." The lesson should be for the folks to have better taste in who they hire.

Joanne in Cleveland - straight, not narrow

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:37 PM

"Against who?
The cake?"

The sooner this referendum is out the way, the sooner we as a society
can get on with the priority issue
of equal rights for cakes...

What if a jam sponge wanted to marry a trifle ?

Where does the church stand on this sticky issue...???😜

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:47 PM

"The lesson should be for the folks to have better taste in who they hire."

While a good general rule-it is hardly wise to put a one-size-fits-all approach to every situation regarding discrimination. Sometimes, it is beficial to, hold firm and fight for your rights (legally) versus wimping out and "kicking the can down the road" for someone else.

Btw, kudos to your stated sensitivity to gay folks-from another "straight person" -onev who also sharesc compassion for the plight the less fortunate in society.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:52 PM

What if a spotted dick took "a carrot cake fancy" to a jelly roll. Would it really matter to a fruit cake acquaintance?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Fergie
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:55 PM

What is it about posts south of the line? The most seem to degenerate into slagging matches where people stop listening to each other and start hysterical screaming. The Judgement is available in a link to an earlier posting in this thread and it deserves a careful and considered examination. I have read it again very thoroughly and reiterate my previous conclusions.

The Judge stated that the specific legislation under which the prosecution was taken holds that irrespective of ones religious beliefs, it is unlawful for a company that supplies services to the public to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The bakery initially accepted the order and took the customers money, but at a later time refused to supply the goods because the owner of the bakery were opposed to gay marriage.

If the required message on the cake was to have been in support of heterosexual marriage then the company would have supplied the goods.

Therefore the customer was discriminated against on the basis that he supported gay marriage.

It's that simple folks, so please stop getting all het up about it.

Peace and love to all. Fergie

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 15 - 02:59 PM

"Against who"
You really don't get it, do you?
They admitted that the reason they refused the order was that irt went against their Christian principles - they discriminated against the customer because he specified a Gay message on his cake - that made their actions homophobic - if they had had any principles they would have refused to serve gays, no matter what the consequences
It's done and dusted Keith - the judge gave her verdict, the Bakery accepted the verdict and are not appealing, the fundamentalists who bankrolled the defence accepted the verdict, the press and news announced the verdict - all over the world - not a quibble from any of them - done and dusted.
You are the only individual - here or elsewhere to disput the findings of the court.... don't you thing that a little
ER
"ER "
Best yet - keep 'em coming
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:07 PM

""The most seem to degenerate into slagging matches where people stop listening to each other and start hysterical screaming. ""

I guess there is a different definition on what constitutes a "slagging match"? While many folks have ignored the court facts, is someone actually screaming?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:15 PM

and what MORAL right does an activist have to insist that the baker violate his Christian principles ?. this was a contest between religious rights and homosexual demands , and on this occasion the latter won in law. I do not dispute that. that does not deny us the right to say the verdict was nonsense, and unjust. the homosexual man would seem to have gone into a known Christian bakers , probably knowing that it would violate their principles if they printed his message that promotes the redefinition of marriage. whether his feelings were hurt or not, I know not. but it is my opinion fwiw, that it is the christians who are being persecuted here, not the homosexual. there is no evidence of persecution or bigotry, other than that the proprietors adhere, as best they can, to what they read in the bible. any other order by anyone whatever their sexual activity would not have been refused and I suspect that when the order was declined, there was no evidence of any animosity on their part. one things for sure...you could not accuse the complainant of being thick skinned !.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:28 PM

""and what MORAL right does an activist have to insist that the baker violate his Christian principles ?""

Pay attention to the legal cases, Pete.

(Kind of over kill on what constitutes "Christian principles" , is it not, Pete?).

So, if'n a "christian" fella opens a public business, serving the general public, versus a religious focused one, it is a clear choice to do so and the business benefits financially from that choice. But, by making the choice to "go public" , all are required to follow the secular laws of the land. It is an elementary choice, that is often compromised by the desire for dollars from all sectors, Christian, not so Christian, varied religious perspectives, and otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:30 PM

So let's see if I have this right. There is a little bit of a tide coming in here that says the cake issue is so trivial that it's hard to understand what all the fuss about.

Well I'm not gay and I'm trying to understand why this issue got people's backs up. I think I get it. Gay people have been discriminated against almost forever. They have fought and fought to end this and have made great progress. So why should they let this antediluvian, small-minded bigot make them take a step back? Shut them up and stop them making a fuss? It's so easy for the smug, undiscriminated-against majority to roll their eyes, eh? Here's the thing. There is a principle at stake here long after the cake would have gone stale. Sometimes the little things are important and it depends who you are. Most of the people here poo-pooing this are not gay. Yeah, right.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 May 15 - 03:58 PM

Steve, I think a discussion about the gay equality referendum in ireland is more important than this cake business, but carry on tilting at wind mills dont let me stop you

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 May 15 - 04:21 PM

gay equality referendum in ireland is more important than this cake business

Just because the referendum may be more important does NOT mean that "this cake business" is UNimportant.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 15 - 04:31 PM

and what MORAL right does an activist have to insist that the baker violate his Christian principles

Huh? Surely the whole point is that the baker did not violate his Christian principles. He decided that his principles were more important than the law of the land and paid the price for doing so. Just as other extremists do.

What moral right does a Christian fundamentalist pressure group have to insist that two people who love each other should not be married or that a raped girl must have the child that no-one wants? You really need to choose your terms carefully Pete when looking at a case involving the Christian Institute.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 May 15 - 04:33 PM

Greg F, please justify your view of US federal and state law.

Keith. The evidence is not fully transcribed or reported or available on the internet. The judge heard it, you did not. The judge decided that the defence case that they were not discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation but on the ground only that they were free to refuse the slogan was untrue.   If you have not seen the evidence, how can you purport to impugn that?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 May 15 - 04:42 PM

Fergie above is correct.

I await any purported case opposing same sex marriage that is not in essence a matter of bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:26 PM

this cake business will not change anything bigots will continue to be bigots they will contrinue to refuse to make the aforementioned cakes, but they will not give a reason neither do they have to, this has acheived absolutely nothing and will acheuive absolutely nothing, that is why it is unimportant.
serious discrimination is more important, refusal to give gays jobs, refusal to let gays inherit property from one another, this cake is a storm in a teacup

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:30 PM

Jim Carroll: to equate same sex marriage with "neo Nazism", paedophila and incest

I would submit that it was Jim Carroll, not I, who equated these things. I simply used same-sex marriage and neo-Nazism to illustrate my point. I certainly did not and would not equate them.

But since Mr. Carroll is so thoroughly convinced of the righteousness of his cause, he appears to believe that the rules of logic do not apply to him.

Mr. Carroll and others seem to believe that since their cause is so obviously right, there's no need to bother with the niceties of logical and respectful and honest discussion. Since Rupert Murdoch claims the right to distort the facts because of the righteousness of his cause, why shouldn't those on the left have the same right to use Murdochian tactics? Is that what you're telling us, Mr. Carroll?

And Ed T., I thought you were smarter than to try to silence me by nit-picking my analogies. "Black Power" is a perfectly legal slogan that supports the empowerment of an oppressed minority to overcome discrimination. Admittedly, some people viewed the slogan as threatening, but that was not the primary purpose of the slogan. "Support Gay Marriage" is also a perfectly legal slogan. But it's likely that some merchants would be unwilling to want to emblazon these slogans on the merchandise they sell. I think one would be hard-put to find a court in the United States that would compel a merchant to produce merchandise bearing such slogans.

I understand quite clearly that a judge in Northern Ireland found the merchant's unwillingness to use the slogan to be discrimination, but I think the judge's opinion went too far.That's my opinion. This opinion does not mean that I am a horrible person or an anti-gay bigot. It simply means that I think the judge was injudicious.

And then there's Steve Shaw's milk analogy. I completely agree that he should be able to go to the store and buy a pint of mild and expect an amicable transaction. I do, however, think he might meet with rejection if he were to require the merchant to decorate the milk bottle with a political slogan. I think that when a merchant or artist does custom orders, that merchant or artist should have the unquestioned right to say, "I don't want to do this."

Again, this is my opinion. I fully acknowledge that it is in disagreement with a number of our more aggressive posters, who seem to think that any opinion differing from theirs should be silenced. I hope they can learn to live with my freedom to express my opinion.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 05:50 PM

GSS, my advice to you is "watch the donut, not the hole". The future influence is related to case law, of coursenot about the folks in the case, nor cake. Consider this:

"" Case law is often referred to as common law in many regions of the world and is also known as judge-made law. This latter term derives from the fact that, while legislation is technically passed in most countries by a separate legislative branch, courts are often able to exercise a moderate amount of quasi-legislative power through the use of precedent. Case law is viewed by most people as a crucial part of a functioning judiciary, as it allows for courts to transform decisions that may have taken a great deal of time and energy to arrive at into a sort of de facto law, making future cases much easier to decide.""

Silence you Joe O, I am surprised you would accuse another here of that type of thing on such spongy grounds? You have a different opinion, why would you wrongly accuse another Mudcatter of such limiting your ability to make your case?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:03 PM

Ah, you're making a jump, Ed. I never suggested anyone would attempt to silence me, although I notice there were some above who attacked my religious beliefs without my even saying anything about religion. Still, we get a steady barrage of demands from our usual aggressive posters, insisting that we silence Mudcatters who express conservative ideas. We've even been reported to some sort of regulatory agency, on the charge that we were promoting bigotry by allowing conservatives to express their opinions.

My complaint here, is that people, you included, have redefined what have said, and then attacked the redefinition as if it were what I said.

And Ed, even when you disagree with me, you're always a gentleman about it. Can't say the same for a few others around here.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:11 PM

The point of my milk analogy was not to demonstrate that I enjoy amicable shopping transactions but to correct your attempt to depict the customer as aggressor and the shopkeeper as victim. The fellow who ordered the cake did not go into the shop intending to force or coerce the cake man. He went into the shop to order a cake. That's what you do in cake shops. You appear to be making a career out of misrepresenting people in this thread. Maybe that's your way of deflecting from the obstinate fact that the cake man is a dyed-in-the-wool bigot, a fact that you are strangely reluctant to take on board. He is not some poor confused soul who needs gentle education. And for all those people, including you, who are trying to defend this man's rights, just consider this, in case you've lost sight of it. Homosexuality is normal. Gay marriage is a lovely, normal idea that will serve to make many people happy, not some nasty aberration that we are reluctantly being forced to take on board. There is no reason to be gentle with people about this. There is every reason to tell people who actively oppose gay marriage that they are wrong-headed. This is not a matter of opinion. And I don't care if I lose what friends I have left by saying that.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:37 PM

Well, Steve, actually, I believe that it's quite probably true that the shopkeeper is bigoted against gay people. And I do indeed see the shopkeeper as the transgressor in this case, and the customer a victim. But I think the judge's decision impinged on the merchant's right to free speech, a right that apparently isn't quite as free in the UK as it is in the US. I have no doubt that the merchant is wrong - I just believe that in this situation, he should have a right to to be wrong. And I while have no sympathy for the merchant, I do not think that filing a lawsuit against him is an effective way of promoting the cause of gay marriage. Boycotts and bad publicity can be far more effective tools against bigoted merchants.

And no, the act of ordering the cake was not coercion. The act of obtaining a court judgment, however, was coercion. That's why people go to court - to coerce the other person to do something that person doesn't want to do. Sometimes it's necessary, but oftentimes it backfires. In my years as a government investigator, I have learned that if you sue another person, you're very unlikely to win that person over to your side, even if you win your lawsuit. I investigated a good number of discrimination complaints over the years. I often told the complainant that even though he had a valid complaint, he might be better off to seek a more conciliatory resolution to his conflict. If he won a grievance against his boss, he might have a hard time living with that boss in years to come.

And in conclusion, although I think the merchant is a bigot, a judgment ordering him to decorate a cake with a slogan he dislikes is an affront against the artistic freedom of all artists and craftsmen.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:40 PM

Dear Ed read my post organize against the bakery, picket them and get the word out. They will fail. What does Rosa parks have to do with it, big steach I think. It was the movement that brought down the Jim crow laws. People standing up saying it's wrong. A cake law ain't quite the same thing. What next an anti assholes law. It is illegal to not extend credit to a person that never paid a bill ever. Or how about making some tattoo places to force them to put Nazi signs on people who want them. What a bunch of shit. Most gay people I know I including my daughter can handle it themselves just fine

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:51 PM

By the way there are a lot of bakeries around here that advertise they will Not put porn on any cake or any slanderous slogans to paraphrase. I guess some birthdays are wilder than others I guess. On the flip side there are bakeries that only do porn images for bachelor parties and the like. So it ain't just a gay issue

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:53 PM

quote: This is not a matter of opinion.

That really summarizes the arguments presented here in favor of gay marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: akenaton
Date: 21 May 15 - 06:58 PM

This is a very good example of the real war between social conservatism and "liberalism".....the issue of homosexual "marriage" is used as a weapon to fragment and ultimately destroy Christian faith.

If I, as presently an atheist, can see this clearly, I find it incredulous that committed Christians like Joe, cannot.
His views on free speech and toleration of alternative views are laudable, but the war on faith is a thousand times more dangerous than the marriage rights of a tiny sexual minority.
Turkeys voting for Christmas, springs to mind.

The equation of homosexual "rights" issues, with Black civil rights must be especially upsetting for clear thinking US members.
Homosexuality being entirely a behavioural issue....whereas the Black population behave in manner as the white population whether they be Hetero or homo. To suggest any moral difference is of course discriminatory.

Keith is entirely correct in his appraisal of the situation, I am truly amazed at the paucity of the responses to his well made points,
do you really not know who he is referring to when he says "you people"?
Do you not feel ashamed to cower together with such stupidity and arrogance?

Simon Jenkins is one of the leading journalists in the UK, an expert on environmental issues, and a real liberal......look and learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 21 May 15 - 07:05 PM

And I guess you would force a Jewish baker to decorate a neo-Nazi wedding cake with their images. Or the Muslim baker to put mohammad image on cakes. Insane why the hell would I give money to a bakery that doesn't want my business cause when or if my youngest gets married I will be paying for the gay cake

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: akenaton
Date: 21 May 15 - 07:11 PM

I don't believe that the "outraged minority" here on Mudcat really give a damn about homosexual rights, the are more interested in the overthrow of social conservatism, and that means chiefly the Christian Church. Every post suppurates bile in the direction of people of faith.....yet they never recognise themselves as bigots :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Ed T
Date: 21 May 15 - 07:13 PM

So, old dude, can you be clear- are you actually attempting to equate porn with gay marriage? What to blazes are you talking about in organizing pickets? Talk about making little sense and over-reaction to a somewhat civil discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 07:15 PM

Homosexuality being entirely a behavioural issue

Not only is this incorrect, it's a disgrace that it should appear on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 07:35 PM

We've had lots of what-ifs in this thread. In general, these come from people supporting the cake shop bigot. I have four things to say about that. First, the people putting up the what-ifs need to tell us of cases of their what-ifs they've encountered and what was the outcome. If these things ever happen, which I doubt, then let them inform our discussion. Second, on the whole, people, barring the out-and-out insane, are not going to waste their time trying to get Jewish cake shops to make Nazi cakes, etc. Third, the law of the land always applies should common sense fail, which we hope it won't. Fourth, the cake man needs to reflect on how he can provide a fair and non-discriminating service to the public whilst there is the risk of his views precipitating unfortunate skirmishes with people belonging to minorities. Perhaps he's in the wrong trade. We really don't need people like him who pose such threats to the unfinished and right-minded business of doing away with unfair discrimination. And, dammit all, he could have held his nose and just done the bloody cake. No-one was going to die as a result. I surely can't be the only person to think that.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:07 PM

No way did I ever equate that. What I said is bakeries here have rules..of their choosing. Including if you wanted a naughty girl picture on a bachelor party cake some won't do It. Others will find a bakery that fits your needs instead of forcing one. That's all

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:11 PM

And I adore my youngest daughter. I could givea shit if sshe is gay or straight. She is happy, very successful and a very good person. Her partner is also. No one in my family cares about anything but her happiness and that's what matters to all of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: olddude
Date: 21 May 15 - 08:22 PM

And my point is i don't want dumb ass laws that serve only to tie up the court system. Ya can't argue with stupid. If someone doesn't want your business take it to someone who does. They don't understand that you can't catch gay. People are born as they are and for me God made everyone and if assholes don't get it they never will

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 15 - 09:15 PM

Having rules wouldn't let the bakery off the hook. Rules can be unreasonable. "No cakes for blacks" for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 15 - 09:28 PM

What if... from now on..

cake shops employed nightclub bouncers to stand at attention either side of the door...

"you can't come in"

"Why"

"Cuz of the rules.. now eff off !!!"😜