Gay Cake Controversy!

Greenmachine · 08-07-2014 4:56pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Meh, even if I don't think they've technically done anything wrong (though perhaps equality legislation will decide differently), that doesn't mean that their views aren't abhorrent or that they deserve any sort of hand clap for sticking to those views. I don't see why I should give a shít about the business of someone who holds such backward views, who thinks that someone like me shouldn't be allowed to marry and uses some spiel about Christian faith as a cover for their own bigotry. Why should I pretend to feel bad for them?

If people tolerate the bakery's right to be homophobic assholes then the bakery in turn should tolerate the rights of people to speak out against them for being homophobic assholes, and they should also then tolerate any nosedive in business that arises as a result.

Well then you have a very skewed outlook on life imo. Religious beliefs or not, there's no argument against SSM that isn't based on homophobic bigotry (unless you're one of those anti-marriage in general people) so if you really were in favour of SSM then I wouldn't understand why you'd go out of your way to reward people who hold those kind of views.

But meh, buy your cake where you want. I'm free to avoid that business just as you're still free to go there.

You do know the original premise of marriage was to treat women as property.

Corkfeen · 08-07-2014 4:57pm

sin_city wrote: »

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.

If you're a business, you are required to operate under numerous different laws. If you disregard them for example by breaching equality laws, you are breaking the law. It's as simple as that. They are perfectly aware of this and should face the consequences of they wish to breach these laws. In history, people refused to serve people because of the colour of their skin or nationality, we no longer live in such a world and people under such an illusion are fools.

osarusan · 08-07-2014 5:01pm

old hippy wrote: »

What possible reason would a gay baker have to refuse to make a cake for a man and a woman?

Why don't you actually answer the question?

folan · 08-07-2014 5:03pm

old hippy wrote: »

What possible reason would a gay baker have to refuse to make a cake for a man and a woman?

theyve asked for a picture of them mid lovemaking to be iced on top?

strobe · 08-07-2014 5:03pm

Would they have baked the same cake if a straight person had requested it? Would they fvck. So who are they discriminating against exactly?

old hippy · 08-07-2014 5:05pm

osarusan wrote: »

Why don't you actually answer the question?

Ask me "the question" & I'll do my best to answer it.

_Redzer_ · 08-07-2014 5:06pm

Who wants me to bake them a Jesus cake?

old hippy · 08-07-2014 5:07pm

strobe wrote: »

Would they have backed the same cake if it was asked of them by a straight person? Would they fvck. So who are they discriminating against exactly?

Themselves, I imagine. Reinforcing the intolerant religious type stereotype...

Awkward Badger · 08-07-2014 5:07pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Meh, even if I don't think they've technically done anything wrong (though perhaps equality legislation will decide differently), that doesn't mean that their views aren't abhorrent or that they deserve any sort of hand clap for sticking to those views. I don't see why I should give a shít about the business of someone who holds such backward views, who thinks that someone like me shouldn't be allowed to marry and uses some spiel about Christian faith as a cover for their own bigotry. Why should I pretend to feel bad for them?

Well they are either discriminating or they are not. You don't seem to think they are if you think they have technically done nothing wrong. You don't have to give a shít about anything or pretend to feel bad about anything. But seeing as you think they haven't done anything technically wrong wanting them named and shamed and their business to suffer because you disagree with their views seems a rather hate filled and intolerant thing.

If people tolerate the bakery's right to be homophobic assholes then the bakery in turn should tolerate the rights of people to speak out against them for being homophobic assholes, and they should also then tolerate any nosedive in business that arises as a result.

If you want to live in a tolerant society then you have to be tolerant of all. Seems to me a lot of people only want tolerance of their own beliefs and couldn't give two shíts about anyone else. If they have done nothing technically wrong then their beliefs are not infringing on anyone.

Well then you have a very skewed outlook on life imo. Religious beliefs or not, there's no argument against SSM that isn't based on homophobic bigotry (unless you're one of those anti-marriage in general people) so if you really were in favour of SSM then I wouldn't understand why you'd go out of your way to reward people who hold those kind of views.

Very skewed outlook to not want a business providing 60 jobs damaged over an unnecessary incident deliberately caused by some clowns with an agenda ? I wouldn't be rewarding them, I'd be trying to mitigate their punishment from the angry mob. I don't particularly like this bully boy angry mob tactics.

But meh, buy your cake where you want. I'm free to avoid that business just as you're still free to go there.

Indeed.

08-07-2014 5:08pm

old hippy wrote: »

Sounds half baked, to me.

Perhaps they are seeking to highlight the sheer silliness of the business and its reasoning?

You may abhor the stunt but you cannot deny the power of publicity. Meekly asking people to consider change achieves very little, IMHO.

They are seeking to highlight the fact that there is a Christian bakery that operates by the owners beliefs. What exactly is wrong with that? They are entitled to their beliefs and to operate as such. That you think it acceptable to victimise them says a lot about you. You seem to operate by a belief system that boils down to "if you don't agree with my views then it's okay for me to force them upon you".

I wonder if this had been a bakery operated by someone of the Jewish or Muslim faith, would there be such an out cry?

old hippy · 08-07-2014 5:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

They are seeking to highlight the fact that there is a Christian bakery that operates by the owners beliefs. What exactly is wrong with that? They are entitled to their beliefs and to operate as such. That you think it acceptable to victimise them says a lot about you. You seem to operate by a belief system that boils down to "if you don't agree with my views then it's okay for me to force them upon you".

I wonder if this had been a bakery operated by someone of the Jewish or Muslim faith, would there be such an out cry?

And if their beliefs victimise gay people, is that ok with you?

The activists are highlighting prejudice, I'm sure they would do the same of any establishment, regardless of what ever hocus pocus they believe in.

osarusan · 08-07-2014 5:10pm

old hippy wrote: »

Ask me "the question" & I'll do my best to answer it.

here you go:

Deleted User wrote: »

If a gay baker refused to bake a cake with a message that marriage should be between a man and a woman should that baker be named and shamed?.

old hippy · 08-07-2014 5:15pm

Deleted User wrote: »

But only if they disagree with your viewpoint should they be named and shamed. If a gay baker refused to bake a cake with a message that marriage should be between a man and a woman should that baker be named and shamed?

The group which are taking this action against the bakery are trying to force their beliefs upon others. No matter how you look at it they are attempting to bully people around to their way of thinking. Personally I believe that everyone should have equal rights but this isn't about that, this is about someones religious beliefs being used against them in what is turning into a hate campaign.

old hippy wrote: »

What possible reason would a gay baker have to refuse to make a cake for a man and a woman?

Yes, it's clearly another hate campaign aimed at the oppressed heterosexuals... :rolleyes:

osarusan wrote: »

here you go:

I gave an answer to the hypothetical but let me be more specific: It wouldn't happen & posing those questions is trying to steer away from the actions of this particular outlet.

But IF a gay baker refused to bake the cake for the oppressed heterosexuals, then yes, he or she should be named & shamed.

Now, here's one for you: how often are heterosexuals refused cakes by gay people? How often are they turned away from B&Bs/accomodation by gay people?

08-07-2014 5:25pm

old hippy wrote: »

And if their beliefs victimise gay people, is that ok with you?

The activists are highlighting prejudice, I'm sure they would do the same of any establishment, regardless of what ever hocus pocus they believe in.

Who exactly is being victimized here? A bakery refused to bake a cake with a political message because it went against their beliefs. They did not say they would not bake the cake because a gay person asked for it but rather because of the message. I imagine that if I, a straight person went in and asked for the cake they would refuse me too.

jdh1 · 08-07-2014 5:25pm

Some people are just a bit last century still, get over your self cake shop your son is prob gay your just too old ta see it

old hippy · 08-07-2014 5:26pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Who exactly is being victimized here? A bakery refused to bake a cake with a political message because it went against their beliefs. They did not say they would not bake the cake because a gay person asked for it but rather because of the message. I imagine that if I, a straight person went in and asked for the cake they would refuse me too.

You were talking about the bakers' beliefs a moment ago. If their beliefs are discriminatory, should they not be highlighted?

osarusan · 08-07-2014 5:26pm

old hippy wrote: »

But IF a gay baker refused to bake the cake for the oppressed heterosexuals, then yes, he or she should be named & shamed.

Now, here's one for you: how often are heterosexuals refused cakes by gay people? How often are they turned away from B&Bs/accomodation by gay people?

Thanks for your answer. It's a pity it had to be squeezed out of you.

To answer your question - I haven't the slightest idea. Hopefully never.

Although I do recall George Takei having a post on Facebook, where he highlighted some cafe owners in America who refused to admit Arizona legislators who opposed gay marriage.

Something like that, I can't remember right now.

P_1 · 08-07-2014 5:27pm

old hippy wrote: »

And if their beliefs victimise gay people, is that ok with you?

The activists are highlighting prejudice, I'm sure they would do the same of any establishment, regardless of what ever hocus pocus they believe in.

Just because an activist wishes to highlight prejudice it doesn't mean that a service provider is obligated to facilitate that.

08-07-2014 5:28pm

old hippy wrote: »

You were talking about the bakers' beliefs a moment ago. If their beliefs are discriminatory, should they not be highlighted?

But they aren't forcing their beliefs on their customers or discriminating. They are not refusing to serve gay people, they merely refused to bake a cake with a political message on it. there's a world of difference. If it had been a case of a gay person went in and they were told that "gays aren't welcome here" then your argument about discrimination would have more merit.

questionmark? · 08-07-2014 5:30pm

bluewolf wrote: »

What a load of sh!te
A LGBT activist targetted a christian bakery.
It's a CAKE

The fact the number of thanks for your post was at 69 when I read it made it just that bit better!

08-07-2014 5:40pm

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Well they are either discriminating or they are not. You don't seem to think they are if you think they have technically done nothing wrong. You don't have to give a shít about anything or pretend to feel bad about anything. But seeing as you think they haven't done anything technically wrong wanting them named and shamed and their business to suffer because you disagree with their views seems a rather hate filled and intolerant thing.

Look, I'll put it this way: if I was the person who asked for this Marriage Equality cake, and was refused it because of the owner's "Christian" beliefs, then I would get the cake baked elsewhere and would not threaten them with legal action. However, I would have no issue whatsoever with letting people know the name of this bakery who refused to serve me and why they refused to do so. It's then up for other people to make up their minds about whether or not they're comfortable with giving their business to someone with those views.

As a comparison, let's say an atheist baker refused to bake a child's Holy Communion or Confirmation cake and said "Oh I'm not discriminating against Christian customers, I'm only refusing to bake a cake that commemorates a Christian celebration that I don't agree with". Again, I would say they shouldn't be forced by law to bake that cake but I would totally support the right of the Christian customer to publicly name this baker and let people who might be uncomfortable with the anti-Christian sentiment know about what happened.

If you want to live in a tolerant society then you have to be tolerant of all.

In theory I'd agree but in reality it's a bit of an overly-simplistic view. Do we tolerate racists? Misogynists? Where does one draw the line?

Seems to me a lot of people only want tolerance of their own beliefs and couldn't give two shíts about anyone else. If they have done nothing technically wrong then their beliefs are not infringing on anyone.

Again, people are free to be anti-SSM or whatever but with that freedom comes the freedom of others to call them out for it.

padd b1975 · 08-07-2014 5:58pm

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.

I read it as an another trumped up reason to play the discrimination card.:rolleyes:

floggg · 08-07-2014 6:00pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yeah, that would be illegal.

I'm not proposing withholding services to anyone based on who/what they are. I'm saying that a business should be able to withhold services for certain jobs they don't agree with.

That is a very naive distinction, and would open the door to all kinds of indirect discrimination.

E.g. Im not refusing you because you are a traveller but because I don't do work repairs on caravans (even though I would do the same job if it was in a house)

I'm not refusing you because you are Muslim I just don't agree with catering Eid parties (though I will do Xmas parties as I agree with those)

You can argue it's only a specific job or event you are refusing, not the particular group of people - but if your refusal will only likely effect that group of people and not the public at large then the result is very much the same.

Equality laws would be toothless if you could target your discrimination against specific jobs and acts that only affected the minority rather than the minority themselves.

If you agree that anti discrimination legislation is worthwhile as a whole then to be effective it has to cover direct and indirect discrimination too.

Annasopra · 08-07-2014 6:04pm

padd b1975 wrote: »

I read it as an another trumped up reason to play the discrimination card.:rolleyes:

You would. You are a bit obsessed.

Annasopra · 08-07-2014 6:05pm

floggg wrote: »

That is a very naive distinction, and would open the door to all kinds of indirect discrimination.

E.g. Im not refusing you because you are a traveller but because I don't do work repairs on caravans (even though I would do the same job if it was in a house)

I'm not refusing you because you are Muslim I just don't agree with catering Eid parties (though I will do Xmas parties as I agree with those)

You can argue it's only a specific job or event you are refusing, not the particular group of people - but if your refusal will only likely effect that group of people and not the public at large then the result is very much the same.

Equality laws would be toothless if you could target your discrimination against specific jobs and acts that only affected the minority rather than the minority themselves.

If you agree that anti discrimination legislation is worthwhile as a whole then to be effective it has to cover direct and indirect discrimination too.

And thats why indirect discrimination is included in Irelands equality laws thankfully

floggg · 08-07-2014 6:20pm

dissed doc wrote: »

so the devout jewish butcher can refuse to sell pork for religious reasons.

the devout muslim refuses to sell alcohol or handle pork can do that for relgious reasons (e.g. M&S in the UK)

the devout christian refuses to sell a cake of a particular type for religious reasons - and this is wrong how?

real doublethink going on here with some people. free and tolerant and enjoying halal meat, but under no circumstances can someone confrony the hypocrisy of the liberal intolerance of being liberal.

live and let live, find a baker that matches your belief system. liberals are the worst bigots.

Lol. You know nothing John Snow.

As I've said this in instance I don't think you should be forced to include a "political" statement (in the sense it advocates a change in the law).

However, a wedding cake (or civil partnership cake) for a gay couple isn't a cake of a "particular type".

It's defining feature is that it's a cake. Or if you want to be more specific, a cake with a congratulatory message on it and/or some cake toppers.

The gender, sexual orientation or marital status of the people eating it doesn't change the defining character of the cake. Nor does the gender of the names appearing in the congratulatory message or the cake toppers.

It will remain a cake with a congratulatory message on it regardless.

So if a baker is asked to provide a cake with a congratulatory message to John and Sarah, he is providing the same service as he would be if he provided the cake to John and Sean. The difference is in the sexual orientation and gender of the service recipients, not in the product and service provided.

On the other hand, the defining feature of alcoholic drinks is that they are alcoholic drinks of a particular type. There very much differ in nature from a non-alcoholic fizzy drink.

In the case of the Muslim shopkeeper, the difference between asking him for a Cidona and asking him for a Bulmers is that you are asking for two very different products. That's the variable - not the people receiving it.

Same with the Jewish Butcher. As a pork sausage is very different from a kosher steak. The products again is the difference.

If a gay couple walked in and asked for he supply sausages for their wedding he could say no with impunity. Heck, if they asked for a pork based wedding cake he could still refuse.

If however they then asked for kosher steak for their wedding he would have to sell it regardless of his views on gay people.

(Of course If he didn't habitually supply steak in such large quantities he could refuse on the grounds of lack of capacity to supply - the reason for refusal would not be specific to the gay weddings as he would also have to refuse a straight wedding).

So can we please stop with the Jewish butcher sausage analogy.

It's just wrong in this context. It's a false equivalence and shows a lack I understanding for the basic nature of the equality legislation being criticised.

mackerski · 08-07-2014 6:26pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They are seeking to highlight the fact that there is a Christian bakery that operates by the owners beliefs.

I have yet to see a bakery capable of having opinions on the existence or otherwise of deities. So the Christianity of this bakery must mean something else. If it, for instance, means that they only employ Christians then I would find that very suspicious. Because equality law is supposed to prevent that kind of situation.

08-07-2014 6:28pm

mackerski wrote: »

I have yet to see a bakery capable of having opinions on the existence or otherwise of deities. So the Christianity of this bakery must mean something else. If it, for instance, means that they only employ Christians then I would find that very suspicious. Because equality law is supposed to prevent that kind of situation.

It's a bakery owned and operate by Christians and the name is taken from the bible, hence it's a Christian bakery.

floggg · 08-07-2014 6:29pm

TireeTerror wrote: »

All this drivel by gay supporters and their stupid attention seeking campaigns actually just turns many people against them.

I do not care that much if someone is gay, I have a few friends who are gay, but I would not have two men sitting at a party in my house kissing each other. I do not want to see those kind of things and I would ask them to stop or to leave. I am not old fashioned, I just do not like to see it. I cannot help that feeling, it just makes me uncomfortable, if it was two girls kissing, well that would be different altogether!

Are you being sarcastic or just homophobic? Can't tell?

Harry Palmr · 08-07-2014 6:30pm

Such intolerance towards the religious.

Gay Cake Controversy!

Comments