Cakes for all you bigots

[rockonvynil 10]

I thought all businesses where allowed to refuse service to anyone if thy so choose.

 

As I see it a business offers a product for sale but a buyer cannot demand to purchase said item,in a recent case, goods being advertised on a web site incorrectly priced due to some error or other were withdrawn from sale but many tried to take advantage of the mistake by making large multiple orders.

The baker should have refused the cake order with sorry we are busy and don't have time to make that cake.

[Jonny5 10]

If the bakery was AN Other religion we wouldn't hear a peep out of the op about this.

 

Bit boring really.

[poppet2 13]

You really are all missing the point. Why don't you ask yourself what would Jesus have done.

He was asked the question about paying tax and the answer he gave was give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's. In other words obey the law of the land and pay what is due to Caesar.

In this case the couple were discriminating which was against the law.

[Nijinsky 10]

We really are living in a mad era.

 

---------- Post added 19-05-2015 at 22:05 ----------

 

A persons worth is not decided by the colour of their skin, religion, sexual orientation, gender or ability.

It is decided by their words, deeds and how they treat their fellow human beings.

There are other forums if this gives you a problem.

 

This keeps getting splashed around. What are you implying when you post it?

[loraward 10]

You really are all missing the point. Why don't you ask yourself what would Jesus have done.

He was asked the question about paying tax and the answer he gave was give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's. In other words obey the law of the land and pay what is due to Caesar.

In this case the couple were discriminating which was against the law.

 

But they would have also refused to make the cake for me and you and anyone else asking for such a cake, what would they have been guilty of in that case?

[ricgem2002 11]

gets popcorn and waits http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3129625/Mother-is-denied-pill-by-Muslim-pharmacist.html did this shop get sued

[loraward 10]

gets popcorn and waits http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3129625/Mother-is-denied-pill-by-Muslim-pharmacist.html did this shop get sued

 

If she had been gay she could have complained and might have won some compensation.

 

Apparently the religious can refuse service on the grounds of their religion as long as they don't refuse to serve a gay person.

[libuse 10]

gets popcorn and waits http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3129625/Mother-is-denied-pill-by-Muslim-pharmacist.html did this shop get sued

 

It's not really a relevant example though - on what grounds were the two women discriminated against? If, for example, the pharmacists had refused to sell them dental dams because they were lesbians, or contraception because they were unmarried, then that would be discriminatory. Choosing not to supply certain items to anyone/everyone isn't discriminatory.

[Mr Bloke 1,445]

If she had been gay she could have complained and might have won some compensation.

 

Apparently the religious can refuse service on the grounds of their religion as long as they don't refuse to serve a gay person.

If she had been gay she probably wouldn't be wanting a morning-after pill anyway!

[libuse 10]

If she had been gay she could have complained and might have won some compensation.

 

Apparently the religious can refuse service on the grounds of their religion as long as they don't refuse to serve a gay person.

 

If she'd been gay, she'd have hardly needed the morning after pill.

 

If the pharmacist had discriminated against her because of her gender, race, sexuality, ability/disability, etc, then that would have been discrimination

[loraward 10]

If she'd been gay, she'd have hardly needed the morning after pill.

 

She might have been raped.

[libuse 10]

She might have been raped.

 

Wow, you're special.

 

You're right, she might have been. But again, the pharmacist isn't discriminating against her as s/he would refuse to supply that medication to everyone. Thereby, not discriminating. Do you get it yet?