Gay Cake Controversy!

A Jewish butcher doesn't refuse to sell pork sausages, he doesn't stock and sell pork sausages in the first place. How can he refuse to sell something that isn't part of his stock?

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.

There is equality law. But there is no SSM law. So in the North SSM is not given equality with man woman marriage. As I said before it would be bizarre if a shop was prosecuted for refusing to put a political slogan on a cake when the parliament of the country has rejected that political campaign in a democratic vote.

floggg wrote: »

How do you think mini cakes are born?

Did you never hear of a bun in the oven?

TireeTerror wrote: »

As I said I have a few friends who are gay and their sexuality is never even in the topic of conversation, but if its right in my face, then yes, I don't like it.

Most gays I have met are aware it can cause discomfort in others and they maybe restrain themselves a little. Which in itself is not right at all, but thats how it is. I know we are progressing and it is more and more acceptable, but things require time to change.

I do not hate gays, or anything ridiculous like that, I just do not like to see two men kissing, it gives me the boke!

Is "the boke" a euphemism for an erection?

A cake???

Anyone else sick and tired of their constant whinging?

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Why stop at SSM. What is wrong with polygamy? Or arranged marriage of children to adults? The NI state is entitled to regulate marriage in the way it has been done for decades and it is not necessarily against someones human rights if it is not extended to their relationships. It is a political matter which is very new all around the world and there are differing views. When there is a majority elected who will legislate for it then it will happen.

Ah the old polygamy red herring.

The basic nature of polygamy - a commitment made between one person and multiple other persons - ain't the same as monogamous marriage - a commitment made between one person and one other person.

The basic nature of same sex marriage - A commitment between one person and one other person - is the same as heterosexual marriage.

So allowing heterosexual marriage but not same sex marriage results in two different groups (heterosexual and homosexual) being treated differently in the same or readily comparable circumstances - which is inequality.

As a general principle, inequality is wrong and in many cases unlawful.

allowing monogamous marriage but not polygamous marriage doesn't result in inequality - as you are talking about two different situations to begin with.

So polygamy has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

But back to my point, just because something is voted in, doesn't mean it's not wrong or even unlawful.

floggg wrote: »

Ah the old polygamy red herring.

The basic nature of polygamy - a commitment made between one person and multiple other persons - ain't the same as monogamous marriage - a commitment made between one person and one other person.

The basic nature of same sex marriage - A commitment between one person and one other person - is the same as heterosexual marriage.

So allowing heterosexual marriage but not same sex marriage results in two different groups (heterosexual and homosexual) being treated differently in the same or readily comparable circumstances - which is inequality.

As a general principle, inequality is wrong and in many cases unlawful.

allowing monogamous marriage but not polygamous marriage doesn't result in inequality - as you are talking about two different situations to begin with.

So polygamy has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

But back to my point, just because something is voted in, doesn't mean it's not wrong or even unlawful.

"Traditional" marriage was developed to regulate the production (for want of a better word) of children and the inheritance of property. SSM, if children are to be produced, would always involve an outsider in the parentage. That child or those children could claim inheritance rights from their natural fathers/mothers. SSM is a different thing to man woman marriage.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

"Traditional" marriage was developed to regulate the production (for want of a better word) of children and the inheritance of property. SSM, if children are to be produced, would always involve an outsider in the parentage. That child or those children could claim inheritance rights from their natural fathers/mothers. SSM is a different thing to man woman marriage.

That's your key word there. Ireland allows people to have children without being married and for married couples not to have children and still remain married.

Anything else you posted could well apply to any couple who adopt.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

"Traditional" marriage was developed to regulate the production (for want of a better word) of children and the inheritance of property. SSM, if children are to be produced, would always involve an outsider in the parentage. That child or those children could claim inheritance rights from their natural fathers/mothers. SSM is a different thing to man woman marriage.

Yes, "traditional marriage" was for that purpose. Thankfully we have moved so far away from "traditional marriage" that the current institution is almost unreconsibale for "traditional marriage."

I mean, we now let women choose who they marry, work, refuse sex and divorce their husband, never mind husbands not being allowed kill their wife and kids for any variety of trivial "offences."

dxhound2005 wrote: »

But "we" haven't moved as far as SSM either here or in the North yet. It is currently against the law in both administrations as it is in most of the world.

And slavery was legal. So?

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it should be. Just because something isn't doesn't mean it should.

In any event NI still has civil partnerships so we can still have gay wedding cakes (unless you want to be a spoil sport pedant and insist it be called a civil partnership cake - but that doesn't sound very tasty).