freddielong
Tour Winner
A little yes, but trades people choose jobs for reasons no one else knows all the time, these where honest just go somewhere else.
Christian bakers 'gay cake' appeal defeat
- Thread starter SwingsitlikeHogan
- Start date
A little yes, but trades people choose jobs for reasons no one else knows all the time, these where honest just go somewhere else.
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
Reading Re what went off re bakers and gay couples is a tough one. The bakers did not want to make a cake because it went against there religous beliefs. To do so/bake the cake would endorse there support of gays. They stuck by there principles and ended up in court. To which we all know the outcome.
To discriminate against gays or others is against the law, yet still no pardons have been given against gays who in the past have been vilified. Whats that all about. Some people are still old school and need educating re gays.
My brothers son came out as gay. It was not a suprise and yet he stuggled to to find the words to tell me. We were not bothered one bit However when he told my mother she said quote " I will stiill love ? But if he comes round to our house at christmas/family do wearing a dress i will have to say something". My bro said "i dont know how i kept my hands off her throat".
To discriminate against gays or others is against the law, yet still no pardons have been given against gays who in the past have been vilified. Whats that all about. Some people are still old school and need educating re gays.
My brothers son came out as gay. It was not a suprise and yet he stuggled to to find the words to tell me. We were not bothered one bit However when he told my mother she said quote " I will stiill love ? But if he comes round to our house at christmas/family do wearing a dress i will have to say something". My bro said "i dont know how i kept my hands off her throat".
I belive it's Marks and Spencer's that ruled that non of their staff on the checkouts would have to serve a customer a product that was against their beliefs. Pork, alcohol for example.
Is this any different?
Is this any different?
JT77
Tour Winner
From what I gather, the gent who ordered the cake was and would continue to be served, the issue I believe was what he wanted written on the cake.
As to why the chap went there, there is a thought it was a deliberate ploy to use a Christian baker, who would not with to write said slogan based on their own personal beliefs so that the chap could show they descriminated against the gay community.
It is fickle because the bakers did not refuse to serve him for being gay, but they didn't want to write on the cake what the chap wanted written.
Whilst I fully agree that if the reason they did not serve was that the chap was gay, then they of course are guilty, in this case I can see why there is some confusion and disagreement. They did serve and do serve people who are gay, they just didn't want to write what the man wanted.
As an aside, the gent I believe also wanted a picture of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street printed with the words, not sure if this has any implications at all, just thought I put it up there.
As to why the chap went there, there is a thought it was a deliberate ploy to use a Christian baker, who would not with to write said slogan based on their own personal beliefs so that the chap could show they descriminated against the gay community.
It is fickle because the bakers did not refuse to serve him for being gay, but they didn't want to write on the cake what the chap wanted written.
Whilst I fully agree that if the reason they did not serve was that the chap was gay, then they of course are guilty, in this case I can see why there is some confusion and disagreement. They did serve and do serve people who are gay, they just didn't want to write what the man wanted.
As an aside, the gent I believe also wanted a picture of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street printed with the words, not sure if this has any implications at all, just thought I put it up there.
louise_a
Money List Winner
If the guy was a regular customer, why would he go somewhere else to buy one?
JT77
Tour Winner
I didn't say that I just stated what I have heard on the news here and the radio.
louise_a
Money List Winner
I wasn't have a go at you.
JT77
Tour Winner
I also didn't say u were 😬
There has been a lot said about this here in Ballymena, and on local radio and tv.
I think the slogan read 'support gay marriage' and as the christians did not that was their refusal to write it.
There has been a lot said about this here in Ballymena, and on local radio and tv.
I think the slogan read 'support gay marriage' and as the christians did not that was their refusal to write it.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 1418
Guest
Fyldewhite
Tour Winner
Yes, totally different. M&S are not allowing staff to refuse to serve any particular product eg alcohol that they will not touch for religious reasons. In fact they apologised when this happened. What they are doing (along with other supermarkets) is assigning staff with such beliefs to roles where they don't have to. Not the same thing at all.
I only heard it mentioned once, so didn't know the full procedure. Just when it started in a local store queues would be forming as customers had to go to new cashiers.
Hence the question.
As someone With zero religious beliefs, I can say this impartially. If someone is bought up and taught something by religion, and truly believes it, then a country accepted that religion shouldn't be able to penalise said person.
What if they were asked to make a cake that said "Jesus is a lie, he didn't turn water to wine"?
they didn't have a problem with the gay person. They just didn't belive the message.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
This is actually the point of my original post. If the order was being placed by a 'straight' person they would have made the same decision and refused to decorate the cake with the specific message.
And so if I refuse a metal band a booking of our church hall because I don't like their message why would I similarly not be subject to the same court ruling. Or a band promoting white supremacist views.
Or if an artist turns down a commission to paint a picture portraying gay male sex - where does that artist stand?
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
BTW - by 'he' are you referring to me?
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Again with this are you addressing me? Because if you are you are totally misreading my posts - whether that is deliberate or not I do not know - but there is nothing at all in what I have said that suggests I am.
On the contrary - with the law now permitting churches to hold same-sex marriages my church GA has had the debate - as clearly to some Christians this is difficult - not gay partnerships - but gay marriage in a church. And our GA has decided that in principle we are supportive of same-sex marriage in our churches, but have left it to each congregation to decide whether or not they wish to permit same-sex marriages in their own church. My own church has not yet had that debate - but I belief - and hope - that we will agree to it. But it is not up to me - I can only make the case.
Please try and remove your 'anti-religion all religions are the same' blinkers - we are not all the same.
Back to our theoretical band booking - since when was 'satanic' necessarily purveying 'hate and intolerance'. If however I accept that it might be, then if their songs contain lyrics that would be offensive to Christian values should I be breaking the law to refuse the band a booking.
And so from what I have said it should be very obvious to you that the quick answer to your quick question is NO!!
Last edited:
FairwayDodger
Money List Winner
This was indeed the crux of the issue before the court and we know how they found.
Once again, your metal band analogy is irrelevant as being a metal head is not a protected characteristic.
For the artist one I'd say he could argue he doesn't want to depict sex but if he'd previously accepted a commission to depict straight sex then he would be discriminating to refuse a similar commission from a gay couple.
Having had a little google. The report seems to suggest that the judges issue with it wasn't the message as such. More that the baker claimed making it would show he was prom gay message.
This is just makes it more murky for me. how can the judge truly have an understanding if the bakers feelings? They're an opinion, and so not tangeable.
If hes he's made cakes for the guy before then he clearly has no issue with him and as the guy was a very public pro gay marriage campaigner the baker clearly knew he was gay. So he's showed no prior descrimiantion.
Imo, it's a bit of a non case. I don't see why the uproar. And think it was done more for publicity than anything else and the baker has been made a scapegoat.
It appears to me the baker accepts gay marriage but doesn't wish to promote it. IMO that is his right.
This is just makes it more murky for me. how can the judge truly have an understanding if the bakers feelings? They're an opinion, and so not tangeable.
If hes he's made cakes for the guy before then he clearly has no issue with him and as the guy was a very public pro gay marriage campaigner the baker clearly knew he was gay. So he's showed no prior descrimiantion.
Imo, it's a bit of a non case. I don't see why the uproar. And think it was done more for publicity than anything else and the baker has been made a scapegoat.
It appears to me the baker accepts gay marriage but doesn't wish to promote it. IMO that is his right.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
So a metal band singing gay songs?
And so an artist would have to accept a commission to paint gay sex if he'd ever painted a picture portraying heterosexual sex? That's what you are saying. And that is nonsense surely. Because if he declined he'd be breaking the law. Surely he can paint whatever he wants or doesn't want as the case may be.
Last edited:
FairwayDodger
Money List Winner
So a metal band singing gay songs?
And so an artist would have to accept a commission to paint gay sex if he'd ever painted a picture portraying heterosexual sex? That's what you are saying. And that is nonsense surely. Because if he declined he'd be breaking the law. Surely he can paint whatever he wants or doesn't want as the case may be.
You just keep trying to think up spurious examples for what is actually a very straightforward situation. If you are running a business you may not legally discriminate against gay people. The nature of that business is irrelevant.
He didn't discriminate against a person. He did so against a belief.
Totally different IMO. This isn't some skin head down football hooligan down the pub saying "it ain't right mate". It's someone who has been taught by their religion that homosexuality is a sin. He is allowed to practice his religion, so do be charged because of it is IMO ridiculous.
IanG
Tour Rookie
Genuine question for someone with legal understanding. Would the judge's decision in law have been the same if the person commissioning that same cake had not been gay?
