Gay Cake Controversy!

old hippy · 08-07-2014 1:57pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So everyone opposed to same sex marriage is a "religious nut"?

Usually. Not always.

dxhound2005 · 08-07-2014 1:57pm

yoke wrote: »

If the bakery is dumb enough to do something like this that leaves them open to being forced to pay out compensation, then they deserve to be called up on it and to pay out compensation.

And if a parliament votes against what the cake shop is against should they be subject to legal action as well.

mackerski · 08-07-2014 1:58pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Asking is fine. Threatening legal action if they decline is denying their right to say "No thanks".

No, in Ireland you have to first be refused and then comes a few rounds of "go on, go on, go on!".

jimgoose · 08-07-2014 1:59pm

padd b1975 wrote: »

Why couldn't the gays accept that the cake wasn't going to be made how they wanted by that particular business?...

I heard these particular The Gays were normal-looking, well-adjusted intelligent people (as opposed to the hordes of usual The Gays mincing around the place with leotards and peacock feathers inserted in unauthorised locations) and didn't expect to run into this sort of problem in a Jaysis bakery any more than I'd expect to start World War III by asking a Jamaican baker for a Black Forest Gateaux. Make of that what you will.

kalmanon2 · 08-07-2014 1:59pm

I would wonder how easy they get out of it, because most shops have a right to refuse service, but at the same time, they had already accepted payment (all reports say a refund was given).

sin_city · 08-07-2014 2:00pm

My brother is gay and I support the bakery....

They have the right not to make the cake just as we all have the right not to buy from them...It's pretty simple.

dxhound2005 · 08-07-2014 2:01pm

jimgoose wrote: »

I heard these particular The Gays were normal-looking, well-adjusted intelligent people (as opposed to the hordes of usual The Gays mincing around the place with leotards and peacock feathers inserted in unauthorised locations) and didn't expect to run into this sort of problem in a Jaysis bakery any more than I'd expect to start World War III by asking a Jamaican baker for a Black Forest Gateaux. Make of that what you will.

These particular gays wanted Queer Space on their cake. What do you make of that?

kunst nugget · 08-07-2014 2:01pm

sin_city wrote: »

They have the right not to make the cake just as we all have the right not to buy from them...It's pretty simple.

Exactly how I'd feel about it.

caustic 1 · 08-07-2014 2:03pm

Is there only one cake shop in the north?

kunst nugget · 08-07-2014 2:03pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

These particular gays wanted Queer Space on their cake. What do you make of that?

That they wanted Queer Space on the cake?

Is this a riddle?

Dyr · 08-07-2014 2:03pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So everyone opposed to same sex marriage is a "religious nut"?

if they say that they're opposed to it on the basis of what the bible says then yes, they sure are.

jimgoose · 08-07-2014 2:03pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

These particular gays wanted Queer Space on their cake. What do you make of that?

Doesn't bother me at all. Everyone needs space, s'physics, innit?

CrazyRabbit · 08-07-2014 2:03pm

The bakery were not being asked to support gay marriage. They were employed to make a cake...nothing more. Their involvement in making the cake would almost certainly never have become public knowledge had they just made it.

Saying that, the bakery will win the case. Otherwise people will just start placing orders with other religious run companies for services or goods which are not in line with that religion, get refused and then claim discrimination. It'll become a money-making racket.

FTA69 · 08-07-2014 2:04pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Being in favour of what has always been marriage, one man one woman does not make a person homophobic. Or put another way being against extending it to SSM is not homophobic.

It does though. When you think that people in a secular state should be prevented from accessing partnership due to the fact that they're gay then that's homophobic. Why else would you feel that gay people aren't entitled to the same rights are the rest of us?

It is what was voted on in the NI parliament with the majority being against SSM. It is a political issue with views on both sides.

Yeah, where the majority voting against it were members of parties with long-standing homophobic positions.

Karl Stein · 08-07-2014 2:05pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Being in favour of what has always been marriage...

As was said those 'Appeal to tradition' logical fallacies were used to prevent inter-racial marriage.

Also people can still be in favour of what marriage has 'always been' and not be against marriage equality, can they not?

kalmanon2 · 08-07-2014 2:05pm

crazy rabbit - ordinarily if you say "sorry, try another bakery" initially yes they would win, right to refuse service.

but the case is that if they had already taken the money, they had entered a contract to make the cake...

08-07-2014 2:05pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The business should have the right to refuse to make any order that it wanted. BUT NOT because the customer happens to be gay.

An alternative example might be a Muslim person wanting to have a cake decorated in a way that extolled the virtue of covering up women from head to toe.

A bakery should have the right to refuse it, but NOT because the client is Muslim.

I agree with this, but it has often been the case that many Muslim traders will overcome their reticence to provide a service despite it going against their religious beliefs ('Indian' restaurants that serve alcohol being a typical example), "business is business" at the end of the day. Having said that, businesses shouldn't be criticised for declining business, someone else will gain instead.
It's their loss at the end of the day!

FTA69 · 08-07-2014 2:05pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So everyone opposed to same sex marriage is a "religious nut"?

In this context they are.

floggg · 08-07-2014 2:13pm

P_1 wrote: »

Ok fair enough lets look at it from another angle. If somebody asked you to bake a cake for an arranged marriage would you feel comfortable in doing so?

That is different. My objection, if I had any, would not be because of minority status or any of the other protected grounds.

It would be based on concerns about whether both parties were consenting. If either party was coerced, then it would likely be illegal and against that persons own interests. So I would object out of concern for the individual, not animus.

If however both parties freely wanted to enter an arranged marriage I would wish them luck, but tell them I'm **** at baking and suggest they ask my bf. he's much better at that sort of thing.

dxhound2005 · 08-07-2014 2:15pm

FTA69 wrote: »

dxhound2005 wrote: »

It does though. When you think that people in a secular state should be prevented from accessing partnership due to the fact that they're gay then that's homophobic. Why else would you feel that gay people aren't entitled to the same rights are the rest of us?

Yeah, where the majority voting against it were members of parties with long-standing homophobic positions.

What do you mean by partnership? No couple is forbidden from living together and if they want to formalise it from having a civil partnership. SSM is only available in a few places worldwide and there is much political debate about it. Branding everyone who thinks that what has held for hundreds of years, marriage being one man one woman should be retained, as homophic just ignores the reality of the political debate.

FTA69 · 08-07-2014 2:18pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What do you mean by partnership? No couple is forbidden from living together and if they want to formalise it from having a civil partnership. SSM is only available in a few places worldwide and there is much political debate about it. Branding everyone who thinks that what has held for hundreds of years, marriage being one man one woman should be retained, as homophic just ignores the reality of the political debate.

Marriage and civil partnership in the legal sense are two separate things. Why do you think that gay people should be prevented from getting married?

_Redzer_ · 08-07-2014 2:19pm

padd b1975 wrote: »

These gays must have way too much time on their hands to be whinging about a bloody cake.

Gateau(ver) it!!

Here you are again, Pad. The slightest wiff of anything gay and you're all over it

floggg · 08-07-2014 2:20pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. As I've already said.

It would also be wrong (as I've said) to decline to serve a person because they are gay.

There isn't much difference in theory or practice between discriminating against somebody because they are gay and discriminating against them because they are in a same sex marriage.

In each case your basic prejudice is rooted in their sexual orientation. And this is even more so in the religious context - the only reason they dislike gay marriage is because they dislike gays.

So I can't see the distinction to be honest. It's a very arbitrary and illogical objection.

And marital status is a protected class for the purposes of discrimination.

P_1 · 08-07-2014 2:22pm

floggg wrote: »

That is different. My objection, if I had any, would not be because of minority status or any of the other protected grounds.

It would be based on concerns about whether both parties were consenting. If either party was coerced, then it would likely be illegal and against that persons own interests. So I would object out of concern for the individual, not animus.

If however both parties freely wanted to enter an arranged marriage I would wish them luck, but tell them I'm **** at baking and suggest they ask my bf. he's much better at that sort of thing.

How is it different though? You would have a morally based objection to doing so, the same way that some folk would have a morally based objection towards SSM.

I'm not saying that having a moral objection towards SSM is right by any stretch of the imagination but unfortunately you can't project your own moral code onto others. Otherwise you'd just be as bad as the conservative dinosaurs.

floggg · 08-07-2014 2:23pm

super_furry wrote: »

If a gay couple run a bakery would they be in the same position if they refused to make a cake specifically designed to support no changes to the current traditional marriage status? A 'keep marriage between a man and women' style cake.

They would be prohibited from discriminating on the grounds of religion. The Christian bakers also benefit from this legislation - it means a Muslim or atheist or gay shop keeper can't discriminate against them either.

In modern society we are all required to deal with people on an equal basis if we want to operate a business.

c_man · 08-07-2014 2:23pm

What exactly did they want the cake for??

08-07-2014 2:28pm

c_man wrote: »

What exactly did they want the cake for??

I'm assuming that they didn't really want the cake but wanted to target the bakery for the beliefs of it's owners and how they operate it.

osarusan · 08-07-2014 2:31pm

floggg wrote: »

In modern society we are all required to deal with people on an equal basis if we want to operate a business.

Businesses are not though. Bars, for example, are allowed to refuse custom, as are any business really.

It all depends on the reason for refusing custom. Some are legitimate, some are not.

jjdub1 · 08-07-2014 2:38pm

Bambi wrote: »

So the bible says its okay to make cakes for queens then?

Your move religious nordies

It actually says the opposite - context really is everything

c_man · 08-07-2014 2:38pm

If a gay couple run a bakery would they be in the same position if they refused to make a cake specifically designed to support no changes to the current traditional marriage status? A 'keep marriage between a man and women' style cake.

They would be prohibited from discriminating on the grounds of religion.

Well no... you're just assuming that anyone against gay marriage is religious.

Gay Cake Controversy!

Comments