Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You need to define who the victims are, first. I'd proffer the bakery is the victim here, hit but an 18 inch deck gun salvo in the PC Wars.

Click click BOOM

Desubot wrote:So is there Rights just a policy then? (honest question)

I think we need a UK Dakkaroo on this.

Medium of Death wrote:Why are people projecting on to the victims that they did it purposefully to start a fight?

What are you basing it on?

Nothing.

More importantly, does it matter? I think the motivation of someone who is discriminated against is totally irrelevant.

Exactly, it doesn't matter. It's almost like they're looking for a weird justification for it.

The sort of cliff notes version of the equality act is (although I am not a lawyer, nor politician, nor judge etc):

As a business, you don't get to discriminate on the grounds of:

1) Religion or beliefs
2) Sexual Orientation
3) Disabilities
4) Race
5) Age (But that may just be employment?)

Of course, there's more details in there but yeah, I think that's what it comes down to.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why are people projecting on to the victims that they did it purposefully to start a fight?

What are you basing it on?

Nothing.

Yeah, I'm not understanding where this sentiment is coming from. How are you supposed to infer that any given company could be Christian? Better yet, how are you to infer that that specific Christian company actively supports homophobic beliefs? There might be a few that will put up plaques with a bible quote or something similar, but by and large, it's not something to expect from any given company. After all, corporations are not people, no matter how much money you try to put behind that statement, and they don't hold religious beliefs on their own.

If this company were to hold beliefs that interracial marriage were wrong, and turned down a request for a cake that displayed an interracial couple, would that sit as well?

If they received a refund why didn't they just go to another baker? The flipside works here as well, if I'm me and they refused me service I'd give them the finger, talk about them on the intranetz and go somewhere else.

They were picking a fight (or as note smelling a paycheck).

 Compel wrote:
The sort of cliff notes version of the equality act is (although I am not a lawyer, nor politician, nor judge etc):

As a business, you don't get to discriminate on the grounds of:

1) Religion or beliefs
2) Sexual Orientation
3) Disabilities
4) Race
5) Age (But that may just be employment?)

Of course, there's more details in there but yeah, I think that's what it comes down to.

There is a difference between 'refusing to sell a cake to a gay person' and 'refusing to make a cake with subject matter you don't agree with'

Stores do this all the time... Walmart won't put 'eat a dick' on a cake, they won't draw a penis out of icing, they won't use copyrighted materials. I have tried all 3. But they will still sell me a cake without those things on them.

I don't see how you can force artists or craftsmen to make things which are potentially questionable content. If I wanted an ASS cake, and they refused because it was indecent, how am I being legitimately denied but someone else is being discriminated against?

Seriously? The baker should be able to refuse service to anyone he damn well wants, for any reason he wants. It is his bakery, his call. If he does not want the customers money for any reason that is his loss.

Maybe the US could use a little more Putin? It looks like things there are going too far in the other way. Sure, you should be tolerant of gay people, but you should also be tolerant of people who dislike gay people.

nkelsch wrote:
Stores do this all the time... Walmart won't put 'eat a dick' on a cake, they won't draw a penis out of icing, they won't use copyrighted materials. I have tried all 3. But they will still sell me a cake without those things on them.

I don't see how you can force artists or craftsmen to make things which are potentially questionable content. If I wanted an ASS cake, and they refused because it was indecent, how am I being legitimately denied but someone else is being discriminated against?

Obscenity isn't protected. However, what was asked for was not obscene.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Seriously? The baker should be able to refuse service to anyone he damn well wants, for any reason he wants. It is his bakery, his call. If he does not want the customers money for any reason that is his loss.

Maybe the US could use a little more Putin? It looks like things there are going too far in the other way. Sure, you should be tolerant of gay people, but you should also be tolerant of people who dislike gay people.

You know how we know you didn't read the article?

What if we're tolerant of the people that dislike the people that dislike gay people?

I'm a libertarian at heart buy the whole scenario sounds like a bunch of butt heads all around.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Seriously? The baker should be able to refuse service to anyone he damn well wants, for any reason he wants. It is his bakery, his call. If he does not want the customers money for any reason that is his loss.

Maybe the US could use a little more Putin? It looks like things there are going too far in the other way. Sure, you should be tolerant of gay people, but you should also be tolerant of people who dislike gay people.

First of, read the damn article. Secondly, yes, let's spread homophobia throughout the world!

Bugger off.

You should be tolerant of homophobics? Why? Are you tolerant of racists? Are you tolerant of bigots?

Actually... you may be.

Unfortunately, we can't fit Sebster's quote on a bingo square :(

I agree, refuses blacks service for being black.

The answer was, it's in the UK, not the USA.

I'm trying to avoid doing the whole political opinion thing. But basically, it seems to me, if it doesn't fall under one of those 5 things (assuming I didn't miss an extra one), the business owner or store has every right to say, no, go away. I don't want your business here.

However, if it can be argued as one of those 5 things, then the aggrieved person has every legal right to go to the courts under the equality act. It would then be up to the courts to establish whether they do feel it does fall under one of those sections. Or, there was another reason. That's kinda why courts exist, really, to make decisions on stuff.


There's a certain context to the Equality Act and businesses in the 60's for Britain that you can have a look for to see why it's necessary. It's not exactly the same as the USA of the time. Similar, but with its own spin.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Seriously? The baker should be able to refuse service to anyone he damn well wants, for any reason he wants. It is his bakery, his call. If he does not want the customers money for any reason that is his loss.

Maybe the US could use a little more Putin? It looks like things there are going too far in the other way. Sure, you should be tolerant of gay people, but you should also be tolerant of people who dislike gay people.

First of, read the damn article. Secondly, yes, let's spread homophobia throughout the world!

Bugger off.

You should be tolerant of homophobics? Why? Are you tolerant of racists? Are you tolerant of bigots?

Actually... you may be.

No, I didn't read the article. I am lazy . No idea why I thought it was in the US. Maybe my Russian indoctrination automatically makes me assume all bad things happen in the US? I don't know.
But being bigoted towards bigots just makes you a bigot yourself. I think we should tolerate all opinions, within limits of course. Inciting violence and hate speech and such should not be tolerated.
Finding the middle way is always the best in my opinion.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Seriously? The baker should be able to refuse service to anyone he damn well wants, for any reason he wants. It is his bakery, his call. If he does not want the customers money for any reason that is his loss.

Maybe the US could use a little more Putin? It looks like things there are going too far in the other way. Sure, you should be tolerant of gay people, but you should also be tolerant of people who dislike gay people.

First of, read the damn article. Secondly, yes, let's spread homophobia throughout the world!

Bugger off.

You should be tolerant of homophobics? Why? Are you tolerant of racists? Are you tolerant of bigots?

Actually... you may be.

No, I didn't read the article. I am lazy
But being bigoted towards bigots just makes you a bigot yourself. I think we should tolerate all opinions, within limits of course. Inciting violence and hate speech and such should not be tolerated.
Finding the middle way is always the best in my opinion.

H

We should tolerate all opinions and support homophobia? Are you even aware of what that implies?

 Ouze wrote:
Unfortunately, we can't fit Sebster's quote on a bingo square :(

Reminds me of the gay protestors. Hippies! (Funnily enough my friends are all gay and I have been called a hippie quite a few times. weirdly enough...)

I'm a believer of

“Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.”

Waves Warning tag. Allergy: Stupid

Why is it that whenever someone asserts their rights, they demand that other people's rights be stripped away in the process?

Do we no longer have the rights to freedom of religion, religious conscience and expression? Free speech?


Homosexuals have the right to live their life as they see fit, to conduct relationships with whoever they like. They do not have the right for others to approve of and support their sexual orientation / lifestyle / whatever.

The appropriate course of action in this would have been to complain to your friends, write a negative review, write a letter of complaint to a local newspaper, or simply just take your money move on and patronise another bakery.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Why is it that whenever someone asserts their rights, they demand that other people's rights be stripped away in the process?

Do we no longer have the rights to freedom of religion, religious conscience and expression? Free speech?


Homosexuals have the right to live their life as they see fit, to conduct relationships with whoever they like. They do not have the right for others to approve of and support their sexual orientation / lifestyle / whatever.

The appropriate course of action in this would have been to complain to your friends, write a negative review, write a letter of complaint to a local newspaper, or simply just take your money move on and patronise another bakery.

That is exactly my opinion as well, but than put forward more eloquently.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Why is it that whenever someone asserts their rights, they demand that other people's rights be stripped away in the process?

"Your rights end where my feelings begin"

Dangit. Gentleman stole my thunder

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Why is it that whenever someone asserts their rights, they demand that other people's rights be stripped away in the process?

"Your rights end where my feelings begin"

If thats a valid argument in a court of law, then god help us...

PC at its finest

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
If thats a valid argument in a court of law, then god help us...

I think they're going with "I was discriminated against due to my sexual orientation, which is a protected attribute in the UK" instead.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Why is it that whenever someone asserts their rights, they demand that other people's rights be stripped away in the process?

"Your rights end where my feelings begin"

If thats a valid argument in a court of law, then god help us...

Who's rights are being stripped away exactly?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Why is it that whenever someone asserts their rights, they demand that other people's rights be stripped away in the process?

"Your rights end where my feelings begin"

If thats a valid argument in a court of law, then god help us...

I've never seen it used, it's just one of those funny extremist feminist kind of quotes

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Why is it that whenever someone asserts their rights, they demand that other people's rights be stripped away in the process?

"Your rights end where my feelings begin"

If thats a valid argument in a court of law, then god help us...

I've never seen it used, it's just one of those funny extremist feminist kind of quotes

Feminist quote?

That's hilarious.

 Ouze wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
If thats a valid argument in a court of law, then god help us...

I think they're going with "I was discriminated against due to my sexual orientation, which is a protected attribute in the UK" instead.

And are Christians [and Muslims] not being discriminated against too?

"My religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I do not wish to condone it by putting a political slogan onto my product".


Or is a case of "Gay rights trump religious rights"?

I wonder what will happen if one day a gay business owner refuses service to a Muslim or Christian because he disapproves of their religious beliefs. Should be an interesting situation.