Cakes for all you bigots

[Cyclone 10]

The facts of the case say otherwise. They refused service based on sexual orientation.

 

Or is the court making the assumption that only a gay couple would ask for such a cake (in which case the court is displaying prejudice isn't it?)

[SnailyBoy 10]

Which facts suggest that? I was under the impression that they refused to make a specific cake slogan, not refused to serve these particular customers.

 

It's in the article, link in the first post.

[Alcoblog 10]

Surely they only become "fairy cakes" when you slice the top off, break it in half, and then put the pieces back in to the topping to make "wings".

 

As in. "Like fairies."

 

But you wouldn't be able to advertise them as 'f***y c***s' (daren't write it), just in case it upset somebody?

[flamingjimmy 10]

It's in the article, link in the first post.

 

'Judge says' is not the same as 'facts'.

[SnailyBoy 10]

'Judge says' is not the same as 'facts'.

 

OK. Ruling of the case says they refused service based on the sexual orientation of the customer.

[flamingjimmy 10]

Well, I don't feel that's the case

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.

 

and I personally wouldn't assume implicit support. I don't see how anyone who makes something for someone else could be personally promoting that cause unless it's clearly stated.

It's as if you didn't read my last post at all!

 

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.

 

Anyway, if they feel that strongly about it, they're free to stand by their convictions and pay the fines instead.

I really hope they take it further than that, I do not like the precedent set by this ruling at all.

[Waldo 96]

Am I the only non-Christian who disagrees with this ruling? (obviously loraward doesn't count because he's just a troll)

 

A business being forced to make a cake bearing a slogan the owners and employees strongly disagree with?

 

Dangerously illiberal.

 

If they refused to serve someone because they are gay, that's one thing. But that's not what happened, they just refused to make a cake bearing a slogan which they strongly disagreed with.

 

This is not equality, it's religious persecution.

 

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)

[flamingjimmy 10]

OK. Ruling of the case says they refused service based on the sexual orientation of the customer.

 

Indeed, details appear to be thin on the ground, I suspect you aren't privy to any facts of the case that suggest such a thing.

 

Or am I wrong, do you have anything other than the ruling to go on?

 

And do you have 100% confidence in our judiciary to get things right 100% of the time?

 

EDIT: Little bit more digging has revealed another quote from the judge “I believe the defendants did have the knowledge that the plaintiff was gay.” so it appears he didn't buy their claim that they didn't even know his sexual orientation.

Edited May 19, 2015 by flamingjimmy

[JFKvsNixon 11]

At incitement to violence.

 

That still a grey area though isn't it. Are you talking about literal incitements to violence or are you referring to statements that are so provocative that they're likely to provoke violence?

[flamingjimmy 10]

That still a grey area though isn't it. Are you talking about literal incitements to violence or are you referring to statements that are so provocative that they're likely to provoke violence?

 

Literal incitements to violence, a little less grey then.

[Plain Talker 11]

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.

[Magilla 510]

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.