Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close

Geomy · 05-09-2013 09:36AM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The reaction was over the top but your post is up there with it. You give the impression it's ok to discriminate if you feel you have the moral "principled" high ground.

I think if you have a conscience and empathy, you wouldn't close the door in anyone's face.

Being Christian isn't about turning anyone away, its about sharing and caring, I really don't understand all these contradictory Christian ways. ..

Ash.J.Williams · 05-09-2013 09:42AM

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

The ironic thing is Jesus was probably a homosexual.

Jesus didn't discriminate between males and females!

lmaopml · 05-09-2013 10:41AM

I think it boils down to a right to refuse service - if that right should exist, and under what circumstances it should.

My own personal feelings would be that it should exist, and business owners should be able to exercise discretion. I also think that individuals to a certain extent should be able to exercise their right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

I don't think either side came off very well in this particular case - As a Catholic, I think people deserve to be fed one way or the other and a cake comes under this category

don't care what the cake was for....

Possibly the case is more nuanced than this however, as most are and the courts will go through the motions and decide if the refusal was legit and why...

At face value however, I think the business owners should pick their battles a little better. I would tend to draw the line at forcing a Christian to do something that they consider immoral like for instance to marry a gay couple as the real battle ground, or indeed selling contraception as it goes against a fundamental tenet of their faith, and comes under a right to exercise religious freedom (as opposed to merely a right to worship, two distinct things ) - Feeding people, not so much....

pa4 · 05-09-2013 10:44AM

The gay rights activists really done themselves justice here, destroying the couples business and getting harassed with vicious calls and emails.

I have nothing against these people and think the bakers should have just made the cake, not like it would have been a sin or anything, but the activists have really put themselves in the wrong too here by going OTT. Problem is it was probably just a small minority of these activists that have made the rest look bad.

lmaopml · 05-09-2013 10:45AM

pa4 wrote: »

The gay rights activists really done themselves justice here, destroying the couples business and getting harassed with vicious calls and emails.

I have nothing against these people and think the bakers should have just made the cake, not like it would have been a sin or anything, but the activists have really put themselves in the wrong too here by going OTT. Problem is it was probably just a small minority of these activists that have made the rest look bad.

Indeed, it's like everything - There are people who are Christian and identify as Gay who would be shocked at this behaviour from a minority of the LGBT community - There are Christians who would be shocked too that a cake could cause such a fuss...

Corkfeen · 05-09-2013 10:51AM

pa4 wrote: »

The gay rights activists really done themselves justice here, destroying the couples business and getting harassed with vicious calls and emails.

I have nothing against these people and think the bakers should have just made the cake, not like it would have been a sin or anything, but the activists have really put themselves in the wrong too here by going OTT. Problem is it was probably just a small minority of these activists that have made the rest look bad.

I don't approve of violence or threats. However I have no issue with them shutting down or business being driven away because of them refusing to serve people of their sexuality. They did break the law through discrimination. I'd have as much of an issue with a business that refuse to serve people because of their race or religion. I'd suspect many posters that support what this business has done would condemn them if they were refusing Christian customers.

Manach · 05-09-2013 10:52AM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The reaction was over the top but your post is up there with it. You give the impression it's ok to discriminate if you feel you have the moral "principled" high ground.

So pardon me while I pretend to care on your opinion.
The state in in modern times has extended its legal powers and then by implication imposing a moral stance on whom a business may do business with. Businesses exist as ententes outside the state social charter and exist to make profit - any discriminatory policies they they peruse will by their nature effect their own profit margin - that should be the implicit control mechanism and not being dictated to by PC mobs. By allowing such state interference in the private sector it makes a mockery of the historical concept of toleration, the ability to hold non-mainstream and popular opinion as per JS Mills.

fatmammycat · 05-09-2013 10:57AM

You know, there's a very strong possibility their business shut because they weren't very good business people, and it's easier to blame the 'gays' for it. People vote with their feet, and they support businesses with their wallets, if this bakery failed, I imagine the owners and their business model had a LOT more to do with it that anything else.

hinault · 05-09-2013 11:03AM

Why didn't the homosexuals simply go to another baker without orchestrating the destruction of this business?

Benny_Cake · 05-09-2013 11:12AM

hinault wrote: »

Why didn't the homosexuals simply go to another baker without orchestrating the destruction of this business?

If the couples rights under the law were being infringed, they were entitled to take a case. How is this any different to a restaurant which refuses to serve someone based on skin colour?

As for "orchestrating the destruction of this business", I have no idea why the business closed down but it's unlikely that it's the result of some shadowy conspiracy. They must have received a lot of bad publicity out of this though.

Ash.J.Williams · 05-09-2013 11:20AM

hinault wrote: »

Why didn't the homosexuals simply go to another baker without orchestrating the destruction of this business?

i'm sure they did in the end...however what sort of a world would we live in if we let discrimination get the better of people?
In the church fair enough, you don't want them it's your rules...however in the real world you must obey the law.

hinault · 05-09-2013 11:32AM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

i'm sure they did in the end...however what sort of a world would we live in if we let discrimination get the better of people?
In the church fair enough, you don't want them it's your rules...however in the real world you must obey the law.

There is no discrimination in the Church with regard to homosexuals.
What the Church objects to is the sexual behaviour of homosexuals.

Let's assume for a moment that the confectioner has an objection to homosexuality. Or has an objection to unmarried heterosexuals living together, just to broaden the discussion.

If either group approached the confectioner and the confectioner decided to exercise his right to object to their lifestyle by charging an extortionate price for a cake so as to ensure that they take their business elsewhere, would this too be discrimination?

Ash.J.Williams · 05-09-2013 11:40AM

hinault wrote: »

There is no discrimination in the Church with regard to homosexuals.
What the Church objects to is the sexual behaviour of homosexuals.

Let's assume for a moment that the confectioner has an objection to homosexuality. Or has an objection to unmarried heterosexuals living together, just to broaden the discussion.

If either group approached the confectioner and the confectioner decided to exercise his right to object to their lifestyle by charging an extortionate price for a cake so as to ensure that they take their business elsewhere, would this too be discrimination?

There is a possibility the customer wouldn't notice and take the cheaper cake and eat it, however this is the sort of practice that travellers experience regularly and yes it would be discrimination of course it is. Not all gay people are sexually active by the way, and is it all foreplay the church disagree with or just anal penetration?

Corkfeen · 05-09-2013 11:43AM

hinault wrote: »

There is no discrimination in the Church with regard to homosexuals.
What the Church objects to is the sexual behaviour of homosexuals.

Let's assume for a moment that the confectioner has an objection to homosexuality. Or has an objection to unmarried heterosexuals living together, just to broaden the discussion.

If either group approached the confectioner and the confectioner decided to exercise his right to object to their lifestyle by charging an extortionate price for a cake so as to ensure that they take their business elsewhere, would this too be discrimination?

Yes, yes it would be. I take it you'd be fine with doing the exact same with a Christian because a business doesn't agree with their religious persuasion. :rolleyes: You don't have a right to discriminate, that's a simple fact. A religious body or institute is legally allowed to discriminate on certain grounds which I have no problem with. A business is not a religious body.

Ash.J.Williams · 05-09-2013 11:44AM

Manach wrote: »

So pardon me while I pretend to care on your opinion.
The state in in modern times has extended its legal powers and then by implication imposing a moral stance on whom a business may do business with. Businesses exist as ententes outside the state social charter and exist to make profit - any discriminatory policies they they peruse will by their nature effect their own profit margin - that should be the implicit control mechanism and not being dictated to by PC mobs. By allowing such state interference in the private sector it makes a mockery of the historical concept of toleration, the ability to hold non-mainstream and popular opinion as per JS Mills.

if we were talking "PC" then fair enough ....however we are talking about basic human rights.

Benny_Cake · 05-09-2013 11:46AM

hinault wrote: »

There is no discrimination in the Church with regard to homosexuals.
What the Church objects to is the sexual behaviour of homosexuals.

Let's assume for a moment that the confectioner has an objection to homosexuality. Or has an objection to unmarried heterosexuals living together, just to broaden the discussion.

If either group approached the confectioner and the confectioner decided to exercise his right to object to their lifestyle by charging an extortionate price for a cake so as to ensure that they take their business elsewhere, would this too be discrimination?

It would almost certainly breach national and EU pricing legislation. An Internet cafe in Dublin got done for something similar about 10 years ago, they'd displayed one price in Chinese and another in English. Perhaps the logical step to take in such a case would be to simply not cater for any weddings at all.

hinault · 05-09-2013 11:48AM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

There is a possibility the customer wouldn't notice and take the cheaper cake and eat it, however this is the sort of practice that travellers experience regularly and yes it would be discrimination of course it is

Everyone is free to choose who they wish to trade with.

No one is obliged to trade with travellers, or homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Ash.J.Williams · 05-09-2013 11:51AM

hinault wrote: »

Everyone is free to choose who they wish to trade with.

No one is obliged to trade with travellers, or homosexuals or heterosexuals.

you are actually

Benny_Cake · 05-09-2013 11:51AM

hinault wrote: »

Everyone is free to choose who they wish to trade with.

No one is obliged to trade with travellers, or homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Actually, in Ireland, sexual orientation and membership of the Traveller community are both grounds under which discrimination is unlawful.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/equality_authority.html

hinault · 05-09-2013 11:52AM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It would almost certainly breach national and EU pricing legislation. An Internet cafe in Dublin got done for something similar about 10 years ago, they'd displayed one price in Chinese and another in English. Perhaps the logical step to take in such a case would be to simply not cater for any weddings at all.

There are many ways in which a business can refuse to trade with a particular party without disclosing their bias.

Those who object to homosexuality just have to be a bit smarter - as smart as the radical homosexual lobby -as to how they go about it.

hinault · 05-09-2013 11:53AM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

you are actually

You're not actually.

Corkfeen · 05-09-2013 11:53AM

hinault wrote: »

There are many ways in which a business can refuse to trade with a particular party without disclosing their bias.

Those who object to homosexuality just have to be a bit smarter - as smart as the radical homosexual lobby -as to how they go about it.

And I really hope those businesses suffer the consequences for breaking what is the law. Just to confirm, you'd be fine with businesses refusing custom to Christians? It's not radical expected to be treated equally by a business.

hinault · 05-09-2013 11:56AM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Actually, in Ireland, sexual orientation and membership of the Traveller community are both grounds under which discrimination is unlawful.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/equality_authority.html

That's if you tell a traveller if you're not going to deal with them because they're travellers

One can refuse to trade with whomever one wishes.
You've just got to be a bit cute about how you do this.

As cute as the homosexual lobby were in this case, I should add.

gaynorvader · 05-09-2013 12:01PM

My feeling is that you should be allowed to refuse service to whomever you want for whatever reason you want. However, if people stand outside protesting your shop and calling you a bigot, that's their right. And if that causes your business to shut down, you have no one to blame but yourself.

hinault wrote: »

{...}

As cute as the homosexual lobby were in this case, I should add.

Your snide comments undermine your argument imo.

hinault · 05-09-2013 12:06PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

My feeling is that you should be allowed to refuse service to whomever you want for whatever reason you want. However, if people stand outside protesting your shop and calling you a bigot, that's their right. And if that causes your business to shut down, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Your snide comments undermine your argument imo.

If media reports are accurate the homosexual lobby organised the boycott of that business.

Those who object to homosexuality need to be as smart as their opposing lobby.

Ash.J.Williams · 05-09-2013 01:16PM

hinault wrote: »

That's if you tell a traveller if you're not going to deal with them because they're travellers

One can refuse to trade with whomever one wishes.
You've just got to be a bit cute about how you do this.

As cute as the homosexual lobby were in this case, I should add.

so the christian thing to do is to be a sly bigot?

Goodshape · 05-09-2013 01:21PM

What is this "homosexual lobby"?

Are you simply talking about civil rights campaigners or is there some specific group that claims to talk for all "homosexuals"?

hinault · 05-09-2013 01:37PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

so the christian thing to do is to be a sly bigot?

Deliberately boycotting a business isn't sly?

The solution is to adapt to dealing with the tactics which the other side will attempt to use.

If the media reports are accurate the confectioner told the homosexuals that they had a moral objection to them and refused to trade with them as a result.

The homosexuals enlisted the help of the homosexual lobby to deliberately boycott the confectioners business.
That's their prerogative.

Given that preogrative, I'm suggesting that those who have a moral objection to homosexuals need to adapt their tactics if they do not choose to trade with them and to boycott customers who are homosexual.

mcmoustache · 05-09-2013 01:39PM

hinault wrote: »

The solution is to adapt to dealing with the tactics which the other side will attempt to use.

If the media reports are accurate the confectioner told the homosexuals that they had a moral objection to them and refused to trade with them as a result.

The homosexuals enlisted the help of the homosexual lobby to deliberately boycott the confectioners business.
That's their prerogative.

Given that preogrative, I'm suggesting that those who have a moral objection to homosexuals need to adapt their tactics if they do not choose to trade with them.

by breaking commandments?

Triangla · 05-09-2013 01:41PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

so the christian thing to do is to be a sly bigot?

The Christian thing is not to be a bigot in the first place.

Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close

Comments