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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I can see that. I be the same way to. I put the word up there with the November word

Edit

Ninja

"From the darkness we strike, fast and lethal, and by the time our foes can react...darkness there and nothing more."

Nice

NSDQ
We Own the night

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
It makes one wonder whether they could have simply objected to the use of the word "queer", deeming it offensive language.

Like N****r? The sort of word that can apparently be freely used by the people it refers to but will potentially land a person thats not a member of said group in jail?

You can't win can you.

Refuse to reproduce an offensive term > get sued for denying service to a special minority group.

Agree to reproduce an offensive term > get sued by some other busybody for reproducing offensive term.

Yes, I think we can all agree that straight people (and white people too, apparently? for some reason?) are the true victims here.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
It makes one wonder whether they could have simply objected to the use of the word "queer", deeming it offensive language.

Like N****r? The sort of word that can apparently be freely used by the people it refers to but will potentially land a person thats not a member of said group in jail?

You can't win can you.

Refuse to reproduce an offensive term > get sued for denying service to a special minority group.

Agree to reproduce an offensive term > get sued by some other busybody for reproducing offensive term.

Yes, I think we can all agree that straight people (and white people too, apparently? for some reason?) are the true victims here.

Tactful out the window

It's not very tactful to start talking about how hard done by the majority group is in a thread about discrimination against a minority group, either, but here we are.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
It makes one wonder whether they could have simply objected to the use of the word "queer", deeming it offensive language.

Like N****r? The sort of word that can apparently be freely used by the people it refers to but will potentially land a person thats not a member of said group in jail?

You can't win can you.

Refuse to reproduce an offensive term > get sued for denying service to a special minority group.

Agree to reproduce an offensive term > get sued by some other busybody for reproducing offensive term.

Refuse to reproduce any term is the end result we're headed towards.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
It's not very tactful to start talking about how hard done by the majority group is in a thread about discrimination against a minority group, either, but here we are.

Relax it was just a joke about how even if a service provider does agree to produce,content that includes a potentially offensive word (queer, n***** etc), then they may risk complaints from a 3 rd party sticking it's nose in.

Besides, you and I clearly disagree about which group is being discriminated against here.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 scarletsquig wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
It makes one wonder whether they could have simply objected to the use of the word "queer", deeming it offensive language.

Like N****r? The sort of word that can apparently be freely used by the people it refers to but will potentially land a person thats not a member of said group in jail?

You can't win can you.

Refuse to reproduce an offensive term > get sued for denying service to a special minority group.

Agree to reproduce an offensive term > get sued by some other busybody for reproducing offensive term.

Refuse to reproduce any term is the end result we're headed towards.

A blanket refusal to produce any political content would be a wise precaution for any business to protect against social justice warriors with an axe to grind and hunting for compensation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They don't have the right to refuse for any reason, that is the thing.

You are wrong here, and your error highlights the tue injustice of the case.

Under Uk law a shopkeeper can refuse service to anyone they dont want to.
Heard of people being banned from thier local GW (mainly kids). This is done by the manager and is legal, the child cannot demand GW staff give them entry.

Now the precedce set here is that shopkeepers can refuse service unless the customer can play a minority card, then its discriminatory and can be actioned with a lawsuit demanding monetary compensation.

Any legislation the legal standpoint which places a portion of society in a superior position to another outside of moral merit is discriminatory and a sign of a broken justice system.

Furthermore the reason for not serving the customer was due to non-participation in activities considered unpalletable according to the shopkeepers spiritual beliefs. It is none thing to request Christians or anyone else show tolerance of minorities with opposed viewpoints, its another to penalise for non-participation in activities promoting opposed viewpoints.

There is no evidence the shopkeepers would discriminate and be genuine bigots by refusing to sell cakes to gays per se, for that reason.

This is a tragic assault on personal liberty when someone is threatened with a lawsuit by a public body for expressing their legally held religious viewpoint by practicing non-participation in opposed activities.

 Orlanth wrote:

Where to start with this.

1. If this was a bakery run by another protected minority, say Moslems, what would have happened.
2. Why should any minority have a protected status under law that gives them legal privilege not available to all. This is discrimination.
3. Why should we allow a society to label anyone that defends its right to practice its own lawful beliefs as bigots. It might be bogitted if the bakery somehow tried to stop the gays from being gay, however the bakers had every right to practice non-participation in the beliefs and values of differently aligned groups.

Our laws are 'middlingly bigoted' because politically correct legislation has criminalised non-participation in minority activities or beliefs, furthermore it unevenly enforces this. You know full well that if a cake was not baked because the Koran says no there would be no case. Because the Bible says no, thats different, oh how intolerant.

The bakery didnt even go as far as to refuse to bake cakes for gays, they refused to bake cakes with gay slogans, because they were being forced to proliferate messages they don't believe in. In any sane society a right of non-participation of an opposed viewpoint would be a reasonable point of right, until New Labour that would have been the position in the UK and minorities were not disadvantaged for it, they were just not unfairly advantaged.

1. If a Muslim refused to bake a gay cake I would be just as angry, and there would be just as many problems to fix.
2. What is this legal privilege sorry? Minorities have protected status because otherwise majorities (like Christianity, in our country) do all kinds of horrible things to them, including but not limited to not making them a cake.
3. Why should we allow a society to label anyone that defends its right to practice its own lawful beliefs as bigots? Because they are bigoted. They believe there is something wrong with being part of the minority group 'Gay', and do not wish to participate in spreading a message of equality for gay people, even when this is through being paid to make a cake in their public-facing business. The design was not obscene, it would not be offensive to anyone but a bigot.

 Orlanth wrote:
Under Uk law a shopkeeper can refuse service to anyone they dont want to.

No, they clearly can't, or this case wouldn't exist. Even if you believe that the bakery is right I don't think you're going to have much luck trying to run a whites-only business and claiming your right to refuse service to anyone you don't want to serve.

Now the precedce set here is that shopkeepers can refuse service unless the customer can play a minority card, then its discriminatory and can be actioned with a lawsuit demanding monetary compensation.

No, the precedent here is that shopkeepers can't refuse service to certain classes because of their minority status. For example, if a gay person is verbally abusing your cashier while demanding a refund or standing around telling all of your customers about the great deals your competition is offering then you're free to kick them out and you won't get any lawsuits.

Any legislation the legal standpoint which places a portion of society in a superior position to another outside of moral merit is discriminatory and a sign of a broken justice system.

There is no superior position. A bakery that refused to bake a cake with a simple cross on it for a Christian customer would be risking the exact same lawsuit. If discrimination lawsuits tend to go in certain directions more than others it's because discrimination tends to go that way.

Furthermore the reason for not serving the customer was due to non-participation in activities considered unpalletable according to the shopkeepers spiritual beliefs. It is none thing to request Christians or anyone else show tolerance of minorities with opposed viewpoints, its another to penalise for non-participation in activities promoting opposed viewpoints.

The bakery was not required to participate in any activities, they were only asked to provide a product that they sell.

 d-usa wrote:
Decorating the cake is part of the service, pretenting that it is a completely separate act from selling to a gay person is some nice mental gymnastics though.

You don't just buy a cake, you buy a cake that is customized for you according to what you want. You cannot sell custom cakes and refuse to sell a custom cake to a gay person because you don't like the way they want to customize it.

That is exactly it.

The gay man wanted to buy a cake. He didn't get one because the bakery did an act of anti-gay discrimination. It doesn't actually matter if they refused to decorate the cake with a gay slogan or to sell it to him bare. Either way, he was refused service because he was gay.

This is illegal in the EU.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Under Uk law a shopkeeper can refuse service to anyone they dont want to.

No, they clearly can't, or this case wouldn't exist. Even if you believe that the bakery is right I don't think you're going to have much luck trying to run a whites-only business and claiming your right to refuse service to anyone you don't want to serve.

Under the law a shopkeeper can remove a customer from premises and refuse to serve without giving a reason. That is a flat fact.

This case indicates that that legal right has been perverted so that some customers have a superior position and the right to refuse service is overruled by political privilege.

Your comments on a whites only shop is facicious because it would be clearly wrong to discriminate on colour, it would also be wrong to discriminate on gender or sexuality. However none of those things occured. Clearly because the gay customers paid for the cake slogan at the shop they were accepted as customers, or they wouldnt have got that far, they were refused a specific service.


You see the bakers refused a specific order as one they could not perform, they did not refuse to serve gays. They are not bigots and are not discriminatory, they are victims of politically correct progressivism and lawsuit culture.

 Peregrine wrote:

Now the precedence set here is that shopkeepers can refuse service unless the customer can play a minority card, then its discriminatory and can be actioned with a lawsuit demanding monetary compensation.

No, the precedent here is that shopkeepers can't refuse service to certain classes because of their minority status. For example, if a gay person is verbally abusing your cashier while demanding a refund or standing around telling all of your customers about the great deals your competition is offering then you're free to kick them out and you won't get any lawsuits.

No the indication here is that they gays could have a cake, they could not have that cake.

 Peregrine wrote:


The bakery was not required to participate in any activities, they were only asked to provide a product that they sell.

No they dont sell those specific cakes, they sell cakes with custom slogans on them and chose to limit their service, not limit who they provided a service for.





Thought for all:

Had a black heterosexual friend ordered the cake on the gay customers behalf, which could happen, do we agree they would likely have been refused for the same stated reasons because the bakers couldn't agree to do the commission piece in their own conscience.

Does that make the shopkeepers discriminatory against straights.
If the gay was black would this be 'racism'?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Decorating the cake is part of the service, pretenting that it is a completely separate act from selling to a gay person is some nice mental gymnastics though.

You don't just buy a cake, you buy a cake that is customized for you according to what you want. You cannot sell custom cakes and refuse to sell a custom cake to a gay person because you don't like the way they want to customize it.

That is exactly it.

The gay man wanted to buy a cake. He didn't get one because the bakery did an act of anti-gay discrimination. It doesn't actually matter if they refused to decorate the cake with a gay slogan or to sell it to him bare. Either way, he was refused service because he was gay.

This is illegal in the EU.

Not correct/


The gay man wanted to buy a cake.
- and they were welcome to have a cake because the bakers are not discriminatory. They took his order in tyhe shop after all.

He didn't get one because the bakery did an act of anti-gay discrimination. It doesn't actually matter if they refused to decorate the cake with a gay slogan or to sell it to him bare.
- and didnt get one because it had to be commissioned, and the commission work involved making something the baker felt violated his consceince and could not participate in.

Either way, he was refused service because he was gay.
- WRONG. He was not refused service because he was gay, because he was already gay when he went to the shop and received service, we know this because he was enabled to buy a cake. He had already paid, had he liked the regular cakes on offer he could have bought one, maybe he did.
We know this is true because a full refund was swiftly offered, and it was shortly collected.
This proves that this bakery is willing to sell cakes to gays and therefore does not discriminate.
However they found themselves unable to fulfil a specific order, because the commission piece would have involved labouring on creating and proliferating pro-homosexuality slogans, which they are opposed to doing due to personal conscience.. This is a clear case of non-participation of opposed activities, not discrimination. This case makes claim that non-participation is no longer acceptable in the UK, which is a moral travesty and would remain one regardless of who the backers were. I would be supporting this point of view if the bakers were moslems, or gays and the customers something else. Though I doubt it would have got this far if the bakery was Islamic.


I put this back to you, what would have happened if the customer was straight and was asking for a service on a gay friends behalf? There is reason to suggest we would have got the same result, because it wasnt refusal of service due to the identity of the customer, it was non-participation of a commissioned piece of work. Something different.

It would still be discrimination against gay people because they refused to make the cake. A heterosexual male might have been buying the cake for his gay friends.

How would you know the customer was gay from ordering a cake in the first place? It is quite possible that the man who originally ordered the cake didn't mince through the door and begin to batter out double entendres or show tunes.

They were refused service because of how they wanted their cake decorated, the basis of the decoration being about supporting gay marriage. As many people have pointed out, multiple times, this is not allowed.

 d-usa wrote:
Decorating the cake is part of the service, pretenting that it is a completely separate act from selling to a gay person is some nice mental gymnastics though.

You don't just buy a cake, you buy a cake that is customized for you according to what you want. You cannot sell custom cakes and refuse to sell a custom cake to a gay person because you don't like the way they want to customize it.

Do you have evidence they refused service because he was gay?

They wrote a letter explaining their position, which while admirably honest was a mistake as regards the law.

The fact is in the UK a business can be taken to a tribunal for unfair discrimination based on evidence. There doesn't have to be a specific victim, just evidence implying discrimination.

In this case, if a non-gay customer overheard the shop assistant saying they would never make a cake for a gay man, or a gay cake, that would be evidence and if reported the Equality and Human Rights Commission might take the case to tribunal if the evidence was thought strong enough.

Situations like this have happened.

I know this because I went on several discrimination courses when working at Sony.

"It was the subject matter, not the person" is not a good argument. The people who want gay tolerance cakes are overwhelmingly going to be gay. They are the ones who will be affected.

It's just a rehashing of the disingenuous gay marriage thing - "gay people have the same rights as heterosexual people: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex."

Surely them stating their position only makes the bakey's action worse? (Honest question rather than a challenge)

 Medium of Death wrote:
It would still be discrimination against gay people because they refused to make the cake. A heterosexual male might have been buying the cake for his gay friends.

So its anti-straight discrimination?

 Medium of Death wrote:

They were refused service because of how they wanted their cake decorated, the basis of the decoration being abort supporting gay marriage. As many people have pointed out, multiple times, this is not allowed.

1. Shopkeepers can refuse service without reason, that is the law.
2. And they were refused a specific commissioned service due to religious conscience.
This is not discriminatory because:

1. It would be discriminatory if they were not permitted to buy any cakes to begin with because they were gay.
2. However gays were accepted as customers, we know this is true because it happened. Whether the shopkeeper realised the customer are gay or not is not relevant as that would require thought policing, and in any cases would be unprovable. There is reasonable doubt that the bakers understood that some customers were gay, and that it did not effect regular sales policy.
3. A specific commissioned service was refused, which is to say a specific piece of work that has to be laboured upon post sale.

This is saying that those who perform commissioned work are disallowed to apply their own consciences anymore if the client is gay (or has another privvileged status).
This would be an unheard of position with regards to commissioned work, the conscience of the craftsman/artist is always relevant and people should not be mandated to create pieces that violate their conscience.
They haven't been up until now.

 d-usa wrote:
Decorating the cake is part of the service, pretenting that it is a completely separate act from selling to a gay person is some nice mental gymnastics though.
You don't just buy a cake, you buy a cake that is customized for you according to what you want. You cannot sell custom cakes and refuse to sell a custom cake to a gay person because you don't like the way they want to customize it.

That will be a point in their favour, no doubt.

There have been several similar cases in the past few years, involving religious I hesitate to use the word "activism" but I cannot think of a more appropriate term. In mean similar in the sense that people in public service jobs wanting to be treated differently or to treat people differently due to their religious convictions.

For example, the BA stewardess with her crucifix, and the registrar who refused to perform civil partnerships.

The result of this will be interesting.

Cameron ducks question:

http://bcove.me/l9xur0al

Though in fariness it may well have been well below his radar, considering the refusal to bake a cake is not really part of Prime Ministerial agenda.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


There have been several similar cases in the past few years, involving religious I hesitate to use the word "activism" but I cannot think of a more appropriate term. In mean similar in the sense that people in public service jobs wanting to be treated differently or to treat people differently due to their religious convictions.
The result of this will be interesting.

It is not really fair to consider non-participation activism, it's passive politics/religion. An activist approach would far more likely have crossed the line into homophobia and would lose support and credibility.

This case is an most insidious application of 'equality' legislation, it doesn't promote equality, it promotes a privileged position. Amongst those whom understand New Labour and what it stood for this is no surprise.

How is it promoting a privileged position?

This isn't like somebody going in and demanding a service that the shop didn't offer because of their view. They asked for a service that the bakery claimed to offer and were refused because they wanted a pro gay one. If it had been "Support the right to life" or "God is great" I doubt the nature of it being a "political" message would have been an issue.

It's simply a ridiculous thought that religion should gain any more protection than it already enjoys in this country. You're not part of a special club that get's to ignore the law because "God" doesn't think it's right. Perhaps Religious people should keep their opinions to themselves and if they don't want to treat everybody equally then they should move out of business entirely.

 Medium of Death wrote:
How is it promoting a privileged position?

This isn't like somebody going in and demanding a service that the shop didn't offer because of their view. They asked for a service that the bakery claimed to offer and were refused because they wanted a pro gay one. If it had been "Support the right to life" or "God is great" I doubt the nature of it being a "political" message would have been an issue.

It's simply a ridiculous thought that religion should gain any more protection than it already enjoys in this country. You're not part of a special club that get's to ignore the law because "God" doesn't think it's right. Perhaps Religious people should keep their opinions to themselves and if they don't want to treat everybody equally then they should move out of business entirely.

So if you make something you have to serve it whatever the message is eh?

As a thought experiment, suppose someone goes to a garage and asks the mechanic to fit a "fish" symbol to the back of his car.



The mechanic refuses on the grounds that he is a Hindu and does not want to promote Christianity, i.e. discrimination on the grounds of religion, on the basis of religion.

Whose rights should take precedence?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As a thought experiment, suppose someone goes to a garage and asks the mechanic to fit a "fish" symbol to the back of his car.



The mechanic refuses on the grounds that he is a Hindu and does not want to promote Christianity, i.e. discrimination on the grounds of religion, on the basis of religion.

Whose rights should take precedence?

The Christian should go to another garage and not complain.
Therefore I would support the Hindu in this case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
How is it promoting a privileged position?

Because the right to refuse service is standard in retail law, claiming examptiojn and demandings monies in compensation for not doing so is a privileged position.

Say a non-gay person without any minority status was refused a cake, the default position is that its the retailers right to refuse service. Claiming minority status puts oneself in a privileged position whereupon equalities agencies will demand compo on your behalf. This is clearly unequal.

 Medium of Death wrote:

This isn't like somebody going in and demanding a service that the shop didn't offer because of their view. They asked for a service that the bakery claimed to offer and were refused because they wanted a pro gay one. If it had been "Support the right to life" or "God is great" I doubt the nature of it being a "political" message would have been an issue.

No it would not, and a pro-choice baker would be in his rights to non-participate. Which is separate from refusing to sell to Christians because of bigotry, and ought not to be seen as such. In any case I doubt equality agencies would get involved, as equality does not mean what it says.
Lets take another case to show this:

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridge/Muslim-store-worker-refuses-smoker-cigs.htm

The classic story of the moslem shop worker who refused to sell cigarettes. The shop apologised but there was no equalities agency raising a lawsuit or objection in any way This case is different, the cigarettes were clearly on sale, the shop staff in order to do their job was expected to sell them, but refused. But ultimately there was no lawsuit or pressure from equalities agencies.
Note that the Moslem Council condemned her actions, for a start there is no law in Islam against tobacco, second they thought it improper.

 Medium of Death wrote:

It's simply a ridiculous thought that religion should gain any more protection than it already enjoys in this country. You're not part of a special club that get's to ignore the law because "God" doesn't think it's right. Perhaps Religious people should keep their opinions to themselves and if they don't want to treat everybody equally then they should move out of business entirely.

The opposite is true actually. Christians are asking for their opinions to be respected, pro-gay opinions are already respected. Chrisitajns are not asking for the pro-gay opinions to be banned, they are asking for non-participation. Thwey want to keep their opinions to themselves.

besides is keeping ones opinions to oneself is the requirement shouldnt we ban Gay Pride then? I dont think we should for the record, but its plain as day that some opinions are not kept to oneself, and others are expected to tolerate them. Pity there is so little reciprocation

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As a thought experiment, suppose someone goes to a garage and asks the mechanic to fit a "fish" symbol to the back of his car.



The mechanic refuses on the grounds that he is a Hindu and does not want to promote Christianity, i.e. discrimination on the grounds of religion, on the basis of religion.

Whose rights should take precedence?

Rights of the mechanic. He's not discriminating against the Christian symbol or (lets assume) the Christian.

As Batman once said. "I don't have to kill you. I just down't have to help you."

 Orlanth wrote:

Under Uk law a shopkeeper can refuse service to anyone they dont want to.

No, they can't. See the Race Relations Act and the Human Rights Act.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As a thought experiment, suppose someone goes to a garage and asks the mechanic to fit a "fish" symbol to the back of his car.



The mechanic refuses on the grounds that he is a Hindu and does not want to promote Christianity, i.e. discrimination on the grounds of religion, on the basis of religion.

Whose rights should take precedence?

Under the law of England and Wales it would be unlawful for the mechanic to refuse service to the customer. He could set up a company that actively sought Hindu customers but would not be able to turn away non-Hindu customers. If however he ran a company that had a legitimate reason for restricting membership, then he would be allowed to turn away people from those groups. A mechanics isn't a religious or faith based enterprise, so it would be unlawful for him to deny service on religious grounds.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As a thought experiment, suppose someone goes to a garage and asks the mechanic to fit a "fish" symbol to the back of his car.



The mechanic refuses on the grounds that he is a Hindu and does not want to promote Christianity, i.e. discrimination on the grounds of religion, on the basis of religion.

Whose rights should take precedence?

Rights of the mechanic. He's not discriminating against the Christian symbol or (lets assume) the Christian.

As Batman once said. "I don't have to kill you. I just down't have to help you."

But this is what the 'cake mechanic' is not allowed to do. Because of privileged status.

As Batman might find out, "I don't have to kill you. but because Penguins are now have legal privileged status, Gotham city can crack down on me if I refuse to help you."

Funny how legally enforced privileged status are the results of 'equality' legislation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dæl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Under Uk law a shopkeeper can refuse service to anyone they dont want to.

No, they can't. See the Race Relations Act and the Human Rights Act.

The original law stands, and proves my points, they can refuse service to anyone they dont want to so long as they are white heterosexuals. Thats not all fair and equal isnt it. Dogmataised equalities legislation doesnt not lead to equality, it leads to creation of priviliged status for some under law and uneven rights and enforcement.

Still as pointed out we have a separate case, the customers were not refused service because they were gay, they were refused a specific service on grounds of conscience and their identities were not relevant to this point.

 Orlanth wrote:

Say a non-gay person without any minority status was refused a cake, the default position is that its the retailers right to refuse service.

On what grounds are they refused service? If they were discriminated against because they were straight, or white, or Christian, then they have every right to launch a case for discrimination.

Claiming minority status puts oneself in a privileged position whereupon equalities agencies will demand compo on your behalf. This is clearly unequal.

It would be if it worked like that but it doesn't. You don't seem to grasp that this isn't about one group being a minority, it is about a group being discriminated against for a particular unlawful reason.

The classic story of the moslem shop worker who refused to sell cigarettes. The shop apologised but there was no equalities agency raising a lawsuit or objection in any way This case is different, the cigarettes were clearly on sale, the shop staff in order to do their job was expected to sell them, but refused. But ultimately there was no lawsuit or pressure from equalities agencies.
Note that the Moslem Council condemned her actions, for a start there is no law in Islam against tobacco, second they thought it improper.

Could you point out who is being discriminated against here? and for what reason? Is it the cigarettes? the tobacco company? every customer who comes in regardless of who they are?

This is fundamentally an issue between the manager and staff member, people can ask for concessions in the work place much like Christians refusing to work sundays and leaving other staff members to work unsociable hours that they never have to.

Chrisitajns are not asking for the pro-gay opinions to be banned, they are asking for non-participation. Thwey want to keep their opinions to themselves.

Are gay people calling for pro-Christian opinions to be banned? When did this happen?

besides is keeping ones opinions to oneself is the requirement shouldnt we ban Gay Pride then? I dont think we should for the record, but its plain as day that some opinions are not kept to oneself, and others are expected to tolerate them. Pity there is so little reciprocation

If you were to drop the martyr act you might realise that there are lots of religious events in the UK in 2014, remind me why all those people march around Northern Ireland which causes all sorts of tension.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Under Uk law a shopkeeper can refuse service to anyone they dont want to.

No, they can't. See the Race Relations Act and the Human Rights Act.

The original law stands, and proves my points, they can refuse service to anyone they dont want to so long as they are white heterosexuals. Thats not all fair and equal isnt it. Dogmataised equalities legislation doesnt not lead to equality, it leads to creation of priviliged status for some under law and uneven rights and enforcement.

Still as pointed out we have a separate case, the customers were not refused service because they were gay, they were refused a specific service on grounds of conscience and their identities were not relevant to this point.

What original law stands?

There was me thinking white was a race and heterosexual was a sexual orientation. As I have already said, you don't seem to grasp what the actual law is. Minorities do not have a protected status, everyone has the right to not be discriminated against for reasons of age, disability, gender, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Everyone, equally.

So if refusing to make a 'pro-gay' cake is discriminating against homosexuals even if the customer is heterosexual, then that means it is illegal to refuse to make a 'White Power' or 'God hates gays' cakes because that would be discriminating against race and religion.

Pretty much anyone who is is any protected class (which is everyone) who believes anything now has a right to force their messages on any cake ever and claim discrimination. If I believe it enough and it relates to an attribute of my being which is a protected class, then I can force my speech down anyone's throat and there is nothing they can do about it?

If that is how the UK works, I am glad I don't live there. That is not how it works in the US.

You would not be able to make a White Power cake or a God Hates Gays cake due to Equality legislation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You would not be able to make a White Power cake or a God Hates Gays cake due to Equality legislation.

It is discriminating on a message tied to a protected class and messages tied to a protected class by the arguments here are 100% the same as discriminating against the protected class. So you say there is currently legislation which makes all religions positions illegal?

So now it is messages which are tied to protected class which the thought police happen to like?

This is the problem of freedom of speech, you can't have it both ways. If someone wants a cake expressing white pride and that is a message tied to his race, and you refuse because it is offensive... then there has to be a list somewhere of government deeming specific speech wrong...

Or speech is not protected class, and refusing to make a message is not the same as discriminating against a protected class even if they are related. You can't have mandatory pro-gay cakes but then refuse other content tied to protected classes simply because you find it repugnant. Either it is all mandatory or it is all allowed to be discretionary based upon content.