When Authoritarians wave rainbow flags: The right to gay cake

Rightwing

Rightwing wrote: »

Even if the travellers have the pontential to wreck the place?

Everybody has the potential to wreck the place

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Rightwing wrote: »

Even if the travellers have the pontential to wreck the place?

Why not go to baker that would like their business? That would seem like a logical conclusion to me, or could they be looking for a cheap payout like the above case? We needn't delve too deep into cases until we arrive at financial retribution.

I get it. You don't like gays or travellers. But I prefer not to discriminate against groups of people.

Rightwing

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Because if this kind of discrimination is legal and there are enough bigots, there will be large swathes of the country where no baker will take such an order.

And if there is one thing Northern Ireland has a plentiful supply of, it is bigots.

Which is why the customer wanted a "support gay marriage cake" in the first place - gay marriage is still not a legal thing in the North, even though it is down South and in Britain.

This could be deemed a discriminatory statement against the folk from the North.

bubblypop wrote: »

Everybody has the potential to wreck the place

Some more than others.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

Rightwing wrote: »

This could be deemed a discriminatory statement against the folk from the North.

There is no law against discriminating against Nordies.

Rightwing

Brian? wrote: »

I get it. You don't like gays or travellers. But I prefer not to discriminate against groups of people.

Incorrect.
I don't have a problem with them, but hypothetically I wouldn't like to be dealing with them if say I owned a hotel, or I wouldn't like them as neighbours. Not sure you would either, but crucially, the real crime here is whether one admits to it or not.

Brian?

Rightwing wrote: »

Even if the travellers have the pontential to wreck the place?

Why not go to baker that would like their business? That would seem like a logical conclusion to me, or could they be looking for a cheap payout like the above case? We needn't delve too deep into cases until we arrive at financial retribution.

I'm going to come straight out and say this, damn the consequences.

You are a bigot. You'd refuse travellers entry to a premises because they are travellers. If you were a baker you'd make a cake for gay people that would make them unwell, because they're gay. That is bigotry and your are a bigot.

Anyone else you'd like to treat unfairly because of their background, ethnicity or sexuality?

Rightwing

Brian? wrote: »

I'm going to come straight out and say this, damn the consequences.

You are a bigot. You'd refuse travellers entry to a premises because they are travellers. If you were a baker you'd make a cake for gay people that would make them unwell, because they're gay. That is bigotry and your are a bigot.

Anyone else you'd like to treat unfairly because of their background, ethnicity or sexuality?

Absolute nonsense. Calm down. I said hypothetically.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Apples and tennis balls this time.

Basing condition of employment on religion is discrimination because the discriminator is applying an arbitrary decision to a group of people.

My point is that an employer or a business should not be allowed to discriminate against groups based on their own beliefs.

Brian?

Rightwing wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Calm down. I said hypothetically.

Ill calm down when you stop with the bigotry

Rightwing

Brian? wrote: »

Ill calm down when you stop with the bigotry

You don't understand the term, nor worringly, you can't apply it correctly either.

Would you sit beside a football hooligan on a train or look for an alternative seat? Be careful with your answer or you could be falling into your bigot category.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is a fundamental disagreement between that we'll never reconcile. You see the state as a separate entity to the people who are help down by the machinery of said state, it needs to be minimised and eliminated.

I see the state in the same way currently. But I believe that by increasing mass participation in the decisions of government and devolving legislation power to the people or committees of people the state can dissolve out of existence and simply exist as a egalitarian collective.

How does my egalitarian society deal with discrimination? I actually don't know. But I agree that coercive force is not the answer.

Brian?

Rightwing wrote: »

You don't understand the term, nor worringly, you can't apply it correctly either.

Would you sit beside a football hooligan on a train or look for an alternative seat? Be careful with your answer or you could be falling into your bigot category.

I would happily sit beside a football fan on a train until he did something to demonstrate that he was in fact a hooligan. You see how that works? I would judge the person on their actions, not their appearance. You've decided they're a hooligan as soon as you see them. Bigotry in action.

Also, you mean "and worryingly" not "nor worryingly". Because it does worry you.

Rightwing

Brian? wrote: »

I would happily sit beside a football fan on a train until he did something to demonstrate that he was in fact a hooligan. You see how that works? I would judge the person on their actions, not their appearance. You've decided they're a hooligan as soon as you see them. Bigotry in action.

Question was: would you sit beside a football hooligan, not a football fan.

pumpkin4life

Brian? wrote: »

I would happily sit beside a football fan on a train until he did something to demonstrate that he was in fact a hooligan. You see how that works? I would judge the person on their actions, not their appearance. You've decided they're a hooligan as soon as you see them. Bigotry in action.

Exactly. So when travellers thrash the bar (and who are grossly over-represented in crime statistics) I used to work at and we started banning them, its based on their actions.

Or the narcissistic LGBT snowflake who sees everything as discrimination and cannot empathize with others or take criticism/responsibility for their own actions. That's why a lot of people can't stand this gay cake bullshìt.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

One is illegal.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

marienbad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That is a scary statistic , never heard that before

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's a very depressing statistic.

professore

My personal view on these is that as long as you aren't harming someone else with your beliefs, it's fine my me.

Nody wrote: »

Would you support a Muslim doctor who refuses to operate on specific gender due to religious beliefs?

Public hospital - no, private practice - yes - as long as he advertised his services as such.

Nody wrote: »

Or a Jewish veterinary who would refuse to treat pigs because they are not halal?

Sure, why not? It's his business.

Nody wrote: »

How about a customer facing supervisor who refused to shake hands with females and only males?

Not a great example, he or she would be sacked. A shop or pub owner on the other hand ... if it was a genuine religious or social custom, and they otherwise treated the females with respect, I don't see the issue. If an Irish man was forced to kiss all the male customers (or even female ones) on the cheek he would be very slow to do it yet this is common in other cultures.

Nody wrote: »

A swim instructor who insisted only having women in full burkas?

This is restrictive to others so that would be a no from me.

Nody wrote: »

A shop that only let females in, never any male?

Women only gyms?

Nody wrote: »

Or only let female in if they are there with a man?

Mosques?

Nody wrote: »

A care hire company insisting only male drivers are allowed?

Don't know about car hire but plenty of women only insurance companies. Men's sheds?

Nody wrote: »

Female circumcision to be done by Irish Catholic doctors on children?

This is mutilation. As is male circumcision that has no medical purpose, but I digress.

Nody wrote: »

All of the above can be claimed on religious grounds as well so I hope you're all for supporting that as well.

oscarBravo

Rightwing wrote: »

Question was: would you sit beside a football hooligan, not a football fan.

You can squirm all you want, but you're drawing the direct analogy between travellers and hooligans, as distinct from travellers and football fans.

In other words, you're implying that all travellers have a tendency to violence. You'll probably deny this, because you don't have the courage to own your bigotry, but that's been the entire thrust of your argument against treating travellers like humans throughout this thread.

Feel free to do some more squirming in reply.

Rightwing

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can squirm all you want, but you're drawing the direct analogy between travellers and hooligans, as distinct from travellers and football fans.

In other words, you're implying that all travellers have a tendency to violence. You'll probably deny this, because you don't have the courage to own your bigotry, but that's been the entire thrust of your argument against treating travellers like humans throughout this thread.

Feel free to do some more squirming in reply.

Nonsense.

Travellers have a tendency for violence. What % of them do I don't know, nor do I want to find out at my expense. Maybe you and a few other pc dogooders would like them as neighbours, but I certainly wouldn't.

johnnyskeleton

I think an important fact in this case is that they initially accepted the order. So it was not the case that they had a policy of not making such cakes. When the owners found out they decided to cancel the order.

So when people suggest that they went out of their way to find the one bakery that had a policy against gay rights and tried to trick them, that does not appear to be the case.

Zubeneschamali

Rightwing wrote: »

Maybe you and a few other pc dogooders would like them as neighbours, but I certainly wouldn't.

You are making baby Jesus cry.

Rightwing

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are making baby Jesus cry.

Not at all. Plenty of people 'will' and plenty 'won't'. It's the people who 'will', trying to force their beliefs of those who won't that creates the conflict.

Chips Lovell

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This to me sounds quite hyperbolic. Equality legislation puts us on the slippery slope to totalitarianism?

Casually tossing around words like totalitarian totally devalues the true meaning of the word.

Whatever happened to saying you disagree with something without the need to get hyped up and say its new Fascism?

Brian?

Rightwing wrote: »

Question was: would you sit beside a football hooligan, not a football fan.

How would I know they were a hooligan unless they acted like a hooligan first? I'm unlikely to sit beside someone singing racist songs or being violent on a train. That's not bias, that's judging a person on their actions.

Brian?

Rightwing wrote: »

Not at all. Plenty of people 'will' and plenty 'won't'. It's the people who 'will', trying to force their beliefs of those who won't that creates the conflict.

We create conflict by forcing you to face your own bigotry. I'm fine with creating conflict so.