Gay Cake affair

[bookiebasher]

What do blonde's think about the issue..

http://news.sky.com/story/1486774/gay-cake-bakery-guilty-of-discrimination.

My initial thought was that it was a bit harsh on the bakery.

The more I read about the case and it's obvious ramifications if the bakery won then
I'm not so sure.

Confused, because as a business I would want to make the choice who to engage with in a transaction
and not be forced to do it by the State.

As a bookmaker you can bar people from betting for the most paltry of reasons but I suppose as long
as it's not discriminatory your fine.

I do feel sorry for the bakery because they held a particular religious belief , it's their business and they ,
in principle , should be allowed to only offer their services to whoever they want.

On the other hand , if everyone did what the bakery did where would they get a cake from :-)

Sitting on the fence on this one unless someone can persuade me otherwise.

Where's Woodsey when you need him ? 

[arbboy]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jd-wetherspoon-ordered-to-pay-24000-in-damages-after-judge-rules-staff-denied-gypsies-and-travellers-entry-10258848.html

Similar to this?

[Doobs]

I do feel sorry for the bakery because they held a particular religious belief

I know what you mean.

My Woodsey random quote generator produced the following

"Why doesn't one of the two gentlemen find himself a good wife who can bake the cake for him?"

[mulhuzz]

great decision.

as for the lolworthy guy saying 'you can't have a hierarchy of rights - this decision puts gay rights above those of religious freedoms' then my answer would be 'of course you can. believe in whatever fairytale you like, but don't discriminate against people, bellend'

If they strongly disagree with it then fine, but there are ways of going about it : 'look lads, that's not really something we can support, but Bakery X down the road would definitely make it for you'

[doubleup]

Presumably the couple would rather not serve Catholics either.

[jakally]

Before I read the story was wondering how anyone could defend the bakers - sounded like clear discrimination.

After reading it, not so sure. Don't think they refused to serve the customers, just didn't want to put the design on the cake that went against their beliefs.
If the bakers were strongly pro animal rights, and someone wanted a 'Support Fox Hunting' cake. then I wouldn't think it's out of order to politely refuse.

[bookiebasher]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jd-wetherspoon-ordered-to-pay-24000-in-damages-after-judge-rules-staff-denied-gypsies-and-travellers-entry-10258848.html

Similar to this?

Yeah I suppose it is.

It is discriminatory but I can understand to an extent why these situations occur.

I remember trying to get into nightclubs with a group of lads and you had no chance.

You had to all split up and find a couple of girls to escort you in or bugger off home.

Don't know if that is still the case nowadays.

Now I know your going to say that's not a relevant example but the point I am clumsily
trying to make is that they are just trying to protect their business from a perceived danger.

I hear all the arguments about stereotyping people and being discriminatory and, having not
been on that side of the fence it's hard to appreciate that feeling of being discriminated against.

Just think it's a fine line between doing business how you want to and with whom and being
discriminatory.

The group included a police inspector , barrister and a priest according to the report.

8 got damages , 10 other claims dismissed.

As I said , its a fine line.

[DaveShoelace]

I suppose the counter argument is should cake shops ran by Gay people be forced to make a 'Ban Gay marriage' cake?

As much as I hate homophobia and am an not a big fan of religion either, I believe that every business has the right to refuse service to whoever they want. The free market will sort them out when they start turning down too many customers and get all the negativite press for being bigots.

[doubleup]

Yeah the free market sorted out apartheid.

These issues aren't difficult - there is a law prohibiting discrimination against certain classes.  Simply ask whether your actions could be considered discrimination, if the answer might be yes, then don't do it.

[arbboy]

What is stopping away football fans from demanding to enter a public house with security and a sign saying 'home fans only' then?  Can away fans take the public house to court for refusing non entry?

[doubleup]

Before I read the story was wondering how anyone could defend the bakers - sounded like clear discrimination.

After reading it, not so sure. Don't think they refused to serve the customers, just didn't want to put the design on the cake that went against their beliefs.
If the bakers were strongly pro animal rights, and someone wanted a 'Support Fox Hunting' cake. then I wouldn't think it's out of order to politely refuse.

You win today's "strawman argument" prize!


clue: there isn't a law specifically protecting foxhunters from discrimination for being foxhunters

[doubleup]

What is stopping away football fans from demanding to enter a public house with security and a sign saying 'home fans only' then?  Can away fans take the public house to court for refusing non entry?

ffs "away fans" aren't a protected class either

[DaveShoelace]

Yeah the free market sorted out apartheid.

These issues aren't difficult - there is a law prohibiting discrimination against certain classes.  Simply ask whether your actions could be considered discrimination, if the answer might be yes, then don't do it.

But religion is a protected class also. You could make the argument that the cake makers are the discriminated ones by being forced to create something that is strongly against their beliefs.

[DMorgan]

Maybe take a quiet five doubleup?

The problem with trying to equate freedom of religious expression and freedom of sexuality is that religion is something that you choose to participate in whereas sexuality, colour of skin, disabilities etc are not.

[arbboy]

Maybe take a quiet five doubleup?

The problem with trying to equate freedom of religious expression and freedom of sexuality is that religion is something that you choose to participate in whereas sexuality, colour of skin, disabilities etc are not.

That is exactly my point.  Why should law abiding football fans not be allowed to enter a pub because of what team they support any more or less than someone who CHOOSES to follow a religion like the football fan CHOOSES to follow their team.