Famine Fighter Survival Food Warning...
Offers & Competitions0 min ago
Cake Off?
183 Answers
https:/
The road to common sense is paved with tenners.
The road to common sense is paved with tenners.
Answers
This whole process was never going to be a cakewalk, which in itself raised issues which would end in a verbal bun fight. Still, hopefully not many tiers were shed by those who made a stand and everybody will get their slice.......
10:55 Wed 10th Oct 2018
grumpy01
In Northern Ireland, isn't it quite easy to encounter bakeries run by Christians?
No targeting need be involved, especially when you read the circumstance of the case (the bakery was recommended by colleagues and the order accepted).
The idea of eqitibility is moot here, because we don't know how the owners would react if a straight couple brought the cake in...although personally, I suspect it would be the same.
The problem here is that people need to understand that bigotry is NOT enshrined in law. The outcome of this case doesn't mean the service provider can discriminate against anyone they choose and get away with it.
In Northern Ireland, isn't it quite easy to encounter bakeries run by Christians?
No targeting need be involved, especially when you read the circumstance of the case (the bakery was recommended by colleagues and the order accepted).
The idea of eqitibility is moot here, because we don't know how the owners would react if a straight couple brought the cake in...although personally, I suspect it would be the same.
The problem here is that people need to understand that bigotry is NOT enshrined in law. The outcome of this case doesn't mean the service provider can discriminate against anyone they choose and get away with it.
1. If you read the judgement you will see that the comapny had never made public its' Christian principles, so there was no targetting.
2. Rockrose has already explained her first-hand knowledge/involvement in this event, and explained that there was no targetting.
Still, don't let the truth get in the way of your your prejudices.
2. Rockrose has already explained her first-hand knowledge/involvement in this event, and explained that there was no targetting.
Still, don't let the truth get in the way of your your prejudices.
Sparklykid
You asked:
//Are same sex couples who are against he/she couples bigots then?//
There are very, very few same sex couples who are 'against he/she couples', because...
No, sorry - I was going to answer that like it wasn't a dumb question, but I really can't.
THAT IS A DUMB QUESTION.
Has anyone ever met a gay couple 'who are against he/she couples'. What is God's name does that even mean? Against tradition marriage? Against straight people getting together? Against their own origins (seeing as their parents are likely to be a straight couple).
No...it's a worthless question.
It has no merit.
You asked:
//Are same sex couples who are against he/she couples bigots then?//
There are very, very few same sex couples who are 'against he/she couples', because...
No, sorry - I was going to answer that like it wasn't a dumb question, but I really can't.
THAT IS A DUMB QUESTION.
Has anyone ever met a gay couple 'who are against he/she couples'. What is God's name does that even mean? Against tradition marriage? Against straight people getting together? Against their own origins (seeing as their parents are likely to be a straight couple).
No...it's a worthless question.
It has no merit.
grumpy's post succinctly sums up the legal situation, which is what the court uses to form its judgement -
// You're quite right SP1814 bigotry cannot be tolerated.The judgement is that they would not print the message because of their beliefs not that they discriminated against the customer. //
It's an important distinction, but a vital one in legal terms, that the refusal was not made against the customer's orientation, but the message he wanted printed, which is not the same thing.
All the nonsense about it being a set-up and 'virtue-signalling' and so on, is so much irrelevant guff, the verdict was decided on the application of the law.
I said at the time that a degree of pragmatism would have avoided all this unpleasantness, the couple could have offered any number of reasons not to fulfil the order. They felt they had to make their beliefs and offence known, attitudes which do not sit well with running a business serving the public.
// You're quite right SP1814 bigotry cannot be tolerated.The judgement is that they would not print the message because of their beliefs not that they discriminated against the customer. //
It's an important distinction, but a vital one in legal terms, that the refusal was not made against the customer's orientation, but the message he wanted printed, which is not the same thing.
All the nonsense about it being a set-up and 'virtue-signalling' and so on, is so much irrelevant guff, the verdict was decided on the application of the law.
I said at the time that a degree of pragmatism would have avoided all this unpleasantness, the couple could have offered any number of reasons not to fulfil the order. They felt they had to make their beliefs and offence known, attitudes which do not sit well with running a business serving the public.
What's the point in having religious beliefs if no-one adheres to them. ? Only a few months ago there was plenty of discussion on here regarding the case where Muslims took precedence over Christians when it came to post mortems and burials. Their beliefs were taken into account. Why should the bakers not be given the same consideration?
andres - // What's the point in having religious beliefs if no-one adheres to them. ? Only a few months ago there was plenty of discussion on here regarding the case where Muslims took precedence over Christians when it came to post mortems and burials. Their beliefs were taken into account. Why should the bakers not be given the same consideration? //
If a Muslim couple had acted in the same way, for the same reasons, they would have been judged in the same way.
The case was not about the religious faith involved, it was about the actions that came about because of the beliefs in that faith.
If a Muslim couple had acted in the same way, for the same reasons, they would have been judged in the same way.
The case was not about the religious faith involved, it was about the actions that came about because of the beliefs in that faith.
The Act, The Act, 'they' love their ambiguous 2010 Act for the same reason they love 'Hate' laws.
They can catch-out and persecute normal people.
Last week the same people wanted to do away with the presumption of innocence and Jury Trials.
Luckily, soon we'll have a decent government in this country that will sweep all this PC nonsense into the dustbin of history where it belongs.
They can catch-out and persecute normal people.
Last week the same people wanted to do away with the presumption of innocence and Jury Trials.
Luckily, soon we'll have a decent government in this country that will sweep all this PC nonsense into the dustbin of history where it belongs.
