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

mcmoustache wrote: »

by breaking commandments?

What commandment?

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

no it's not, that's whats known as protest.
They just wanted to buy a cake.
this really is dark ages stuff....god actually has no issue with sexuality.

I don't think that you and I will agree on this issue.

lmaopml wrote: »

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....

Im surprised with you....

Would you be offended if an Atheists treated you the same way,I think you would. ..

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

the impression i get from your post is you have not put yourself in the shoes of someone being turned away from a business because the owner feels there is something wrong with them. Think about it, it must feel horrible. You can put it down to belief, but that belief is there is something wrong with the person...

Nightclubs and very many business would have legit reasons for being able to refuse entry - I was refused when I looked too young to be sold smokes or alcohol..... Some hotels won't cater for hens or stags etc. There are legitimate reasons to refuse a service. The courts decide these things.

A business should have a right to refuse service so long as it's considered legal and reasonable under law. I don't believe in discrimination against the LGBT communities, but there is also discriminating against a persons freedom of conscience and their religious freedom that must be balanced.

As I said, in relation to the opening posts news story. I don't believe that 'cakes' are a legitimate reason, no more than I would if it was a cake decoration shop - but there will be times when a person who has a religion, may find themselves put in a situation where they also feel their rights to freedom of conscience come into play. I gave a couple of examples of those, there are many more - and this is not just a Christian issue. It would incorporate those who may be forced to perform abortions etc. The 'Cake' scenario however is small stuff. I tend not to sweat the small stuff.

hinault wrote: »

I think it is sly. But I think it's their prerogative if they wish to escalate the dispute. They chose to exercise that prerogative.

My advice is that those on the opposing side need to exercise their prerogative to counter that level of "slyness"

Is this the definition you are using?

sly
/slī/
Adjective
Having or showing a cunning and deceitful nature.

Because it's not cunning or deceitful to mount a protest or boycott. It's actually quite open and forthright if you ask me. It doesn't even seem particularly clever as it's the most obvious recourse.

Geomy wrote: »

Over the year's I have often heard and read about homophobic people being actually gay themselves,caught paying for gay sex, online history by their partners, saunas and sex clubs etc

There was a few well known Pastor's,Catholic priests, other people in high places also caught up in hypocrisy....

What has that got to do with anything Geomy? Could you please clarify for me too your 'surprise', I don't understand what you meant?

Everybody is not 'homophobic' that is religious - that's a myth, a well trotted out one, but nonetheless a myth.

There is such a thing as a person who identifies as gay and is religious too ya know - not all people who identify as gay are anti theists either. Shees...

Tea cup and storm comes to mind - with wedding cake.

To be honest I'd have to say that the LGBT activists are the party who are most in the wrong here. In the same fashion that anybody is free to buy from whoever they want, anybody is also free to sell to whoever they want.

Yes it was bad form from the bakery to refuse to sell to the couple but shít happens, find somewhere else to bake the cake and don't give them your money, but don't threaten their suppliers and other customers because they refused to sell to you.

jill_valentine wrote: »

However, if they then go out of business, because the people "free to buy from whoever they want" took this policy into account and promptly chose to buy cakes from people who aren't jerks instead, thems the breaks, I'd have thought?

If they choose to be arseholes to particular types of customers - be they gay, black, female, etc - on a purely ideological basis, they can hardly cry foul when, oh noes, people find out that's why they're being tools and take their cash elsewhere. That's the call they made.
.

You kind of misinterpreted my point. I have no problem with them taking their business and cash elsewhere. What I do have a problem with is them intimidating the bakery's other customers and suppliers.

Corkfeen wrote: »

If a business repeatedly refuses to serve gay people but never officially states it's because the client is gay, eventually people will pick up on that factor. And you'll have a strong case of discrimination established against the business. Your methodology is also far more sly than informing people of the business' position and protesting it.

I genuinely can't believe that you're trying to promote a position that should have died out during the civil rights movement. The fact that you won't answer my question about if a business refused to serve a Christian, indicates that you'd have no issue with it. At least you're consistent.

The confectioner informed the homosexuals that, for moral reasons, the confectioner could not trade with them.
The confectioner was being honest and truthful in asserting those views.

That honest and candid admission by the confectioner saw the homosexuals escalate the issue by persuading others to partake in a commercial boycott of that business.

The tactics adopted by the homosexuals illustrates their intolerance and the levels that they will go to in order to assert their views.

Those in the heterosexual community who find homosexuality morally unacceptable need to be aware of the lengths that some homosexuals will go to in order to assert their views and to destroy the opposing view.
The tale here is salutory.

hinault wrote: »

The confectioner informed the homosexuals that, for moral reasons, the confectioner could not trade with them.
The confectioner was being honest and truthful in asserting those views.

That honest and candid admission by the confectioner saw the homosexuals escalate the issue by persuading others to partake in a commercial boycott of that business.

The tactics adopted by the homosexuals illustrates their intolerance and the levels that they will go to in order to assert their views.

Those in the heterosexual community who find homosexuality morally unacceptable need to be aware of the lengths that some homosexuals will go to in order to assert their views and to destroy the opposing view.
The tale here is salutory.

The homosexual couple found the confectioner's morality to be immoral by their standards.
The homosexual couple were being honest and truthful in asserting those views.
That honest and candid admission by the homosexual couple caused some of their friends, family, acquaintances and other people they'd never met to boycott the confectioners.

There are at least two sides to every tale and people will find a way to spin it any way they want. The bottom line is that the confectioners did not do this out of morality, they did it out of bigotry and hid behind morality as an excuse. Had they done this out of morality, they would have protested the wedding, not just refused to sell a cake, which had little impact on whether the ceremony would go ahead or not. If you believe someone's doing something morally wrong, you do not just refuse to sell them something, you try to stop them, you organise your friends to boycott or protest their business wedding.

gaynorvader wrote: »

There are at least two sides to every tale and people will find a way to spin it any way they want. The bottom line is that the confectioners did not do this out of morality, they did it out of bigotry and hid behind morality as an excuse.

Incorrect.

You're making an assertion based on your opinion and not an assertion based upon facts.

Are you homosexual?

gaynorvader wrote: »

Had they done this out of morality, they would have protested the wedding, not just refused to sell a cake, which had little impact on whether the ceremony would go ahead or not. If you believe someone's doing something morally wrong, you do not just refuse to sell them something, you try to stop them, you organise your friends to boycott or protest their business wedding.

The vast majority of heterosexuals do not feel the protest or demonstrate.
Nor do they feel compelled to march parades to inform the world that they are heterosexual.

The tactics of the homosexual lobby has been exposed for the clandestine tactics to impose their intolerant views upon others.

Heterosexuals should be aware to the extent that the homosexual lobby will go to impose those views upon society and the heterosexual community need to be as clandestine to combat this threat.

hinault wrote: »

The tactics adopted by the homosexuals illustrates their intolerance and the levels that they will go to in order to assert their views.

Their "intolerance of intolerance". What a nonsense. :rolleyes:.

The bakers chose to make a commercial point of their personal convictions. They chose to, they decided to make their business a means to make a point, to bring their private judgement of other individuals into the public sphere.

The public looked at that and responded by bringing their wallets elsewhere accordingly.

Again, the problem here is not that their crappy attitude was made public. If they're happy to express it on a one-to-one basis where they get the chance to humiliate and alienate an engaged couple, then they can't credibly cry about it when their paying public looks at that and decides they don't want to reward such business practices over less douchey competitors.

Just as I wouldn't patronise a store I knew made a point of refusing black or disabled customers on a point of personal principle.

hinault wrote: »

Incorrect.

You're making an assertion based on your opinion and not an assertion based upon facts.

Are you homosexual?

No, I made that assertion based on the evidence presented.

hinault wrote:

The vast majority of heterosexuals do not feel the (need to) protest or demonstrate.
Nor do they feel compelled to march parades to inform the world that they are heterosexual.

That's not what I meant, let me try to make it simpler. If someone is doing something you truly believe is morally bad, you try to stop them.

hinault wrote:

The tactics of the homosexual lobby has been exposed for the clandestine tactics to impose their intolerant views upon others.

Heterosexuals should be aware to the extent that the homosexual lobby will go to impose those views upon society and the heterosexual community need to be as clandestine to combat this threat.

Is English not your first language?

clan·des·tine
/klanˈdestin/
Adjective
Kept secret or done secretively, esp. because illicit.
Synonyms
secret - surreptitious - undercover - furtive - privy

There is nothing clandestine about boycotting. It is in fact, the very opposite of clandestine

hinault wrote: »

No.

People go in to business to make a living and to hopefully make a profit too.

To assert that these people are in business to promulgate their moral views is
quite frankly laughable:D

The decision to deliberately boycott this business by the homosexual lobby needs to be publicised as it shows the clandestine tactics that the homosexual lobby will resort to in order to impose their intolerant views upon others.

How is wanting to be served effing cake an intolerant view?