|
Post by Dutchpeter on Aug 15, 2019 15:05:19 GMT
Wasn't the slogan 'support gay marriage'? If the bakers are so against something that has no affect on them that they won't even write the words on a cake then sod em. Hope the court gives the customers something.So do I. A bloody good slapping and an instruction to stop wasting court time with this sort of bollocks. As a matter of interest, do you not see the paradox of your position that the customer has every right to ask the baker to do something, but the baker has no right to refuse to do it? That’s a pretty bad world you are advocating. While that Gay rights advocate is busy wasting time in the courts, he and his movement are too chicken to counter protest against homophobic parents outside Birmingham schools.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Aug 15, 2019 15:16:17 GMT
I dunno mate. I think if bakers and such start refusing things based on their own personal beliefs it'll just open a can of worms as everyone can start doing it. At the end of the day it's just a cake and they don't have to eat it. I don't like the slogan but it's not quite as bad as say 'support ISIS' or something extreme. Let's say you have a kid and you name him Adolf (could happen). How would you feel if you wanted to get him a birthday cake and it got refused because the bakers in question didn't like the name based on their beliefs in relation to Nazis. Let's say you go to a bakery run by Mormons and they refuse to make you a cake with a birthday message on it just because they don't believe in celebrating birthdays. Or Chinese bakers who refuse to make a cake for new years because its not aligned with their new year. It would never end. If the bakery in question has a general policy whereby they refuse slogans of any political or potentially devisive nature then fair enough. It's a shitty situation really as I can see points to both sides. If one baker refuses to bake it, don’t you just go down the road to another baker and ask them to do it instead? This legal action must be costing a fortune. I wonder who is footing the bill? Tax payer, as I highlighted earlier in this thread. Gareth is still a wanker. I desperately hope he loses once again. Tosser....
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 15, 2019 15:17:46 GMT
They will lose. The people were not descriminated against. The bakers would make gay people a cake. The law cannot force a baker to make a cake decorated with slogans he does not believe in. The law does say you cannot refuse custom based on sexuality It would be no different to someone wanting a cake decorated with hate or racist slogans. It really is PC gone mad and the cunt taking the cake is only doing it for activism Spurious I dunno mate. I think if bakers and such start refusing things based on their own personal beliefs it'll just open a can of worms as everyone can start doing it. At the end of the day it's just a cake and they don't have to eat it. I don't like the slogan but it's not quite as bad as say 'support ISIS' or something extreme. Let's say you have a kid and you name him Adolf (could happen). How would you feel if you wanted to get him a birthday cake and it got refused because the bakers in question didn't like the name based on their beliefs in relation to Nazis. Let's say you go to a bakery run by Mormons and they refuse to make you a cake with a birthday message on it just because they don't believe in celebrating birthdays. Or Chinese bakers who refuse to make a cake for new years because its not aligned with their new year. It would never end. If the bakery in question has a general policy whereby they refuse slogans of any political or potentially devisive nature then fair enough. It's a shitty situation really as I can see points to both sides. What if it was something like support ISIS The bakers have every right not to use a slogan their beliefs are at odds with. I would support them refusing the slogan “support isis” but not discriminating against Moslems
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 15, 2019 15:18:38 GMT
If only there was some way of studying this Guess we’ll just never know It would be the easiest thing in the world to do such a study. So oh, if we could only devise a way of searching some kind of international network to discover the conclusions of such studies!
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Aug 15, 2019 15:55:20 GMT
But it does affect the bakers, it affects their chosen beliefs. Rightly or wrongly, they should be allowed to uphold their own beliefs - sod the customer if they want something the business doesn't want to supply. The customer is not always right. Oh I absolutely see that side of it, and I'm mostly just not a fan of the business refusing to make a cake (a cake ffs) because of their bigoted, shitarse 'beliefs'. Not believing in equality of sexuality is the sign of tossers, but yeah, I've no idea legally what will happen.
They didn't refuse to bake a cake though. They agreed to bake the cake and knew it was for a gay marriage, they simply refused to do it in the end because of the slogan that was being insisted upon. The couple could very easily have had the cake baked there, then go to virtually any local supermarket nowadays and had slogans/pictures etc. put onto it....rather than do that, they decided to take someone to court instead...over a fucking cake! The customer did the whole thing as a PR exercise as he's a gay rights activist and wants to make a point despite him having no legal standing (hence them losing the case at the Supreme court).
As Salop says, there is no law anywhere to say any business HAS to write things that go against any personal beliefs they hold.
It's basically an open and shut case which is why the customers lost it already. It's also not a case against the bakers anyway, its against the UK itself and whether or not they contravened rules by giving the original rulings.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 15, 2019 17:43:32 GMT
It would be the easiest thing in the world to do such a study. So oh, if we could only devise a way of searching some kind of international network to discover the conclusions of such studies! International studies and network won't be necessary, if you don't think for instance financial situation is one of the main background factors of becoming gay. There are already several existing reports on the genetics and epigenetics and its likely effect on sexuality. I won't be able to translate them now. It's also easier when I got another internet, so I can give links for the curious ones. The tricky part with this kind of research is to get people with funds interested to support it financially, because it can be considered a bit controvercial. The state won't give any support, that's for sure. I don't see why increased knowledge can ever be a problem. Discussing sexuality without a scientific medical approach is pretty pointless.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Aug 15, 2019 18:14:05 GMT
Is it a fairy cake? 😉
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2019 19:51:15 GMT
Oh I absolutely see that side of it, and I'm mostly just not a fan of the business refusing to make a cake (a cake ffs) because of their bigoted, shitarse 'beliefs'. Not believing in equality of sexuality is the sign of tossers, but yeah, I've no idea legally what will happen. They didn't refuse to bake a cake though. They agreed to bake the cake and knew it was for a gay marriage, they simply refused to do it in the end because of the slogan that was being insisted upon. The couple could very easily have had the cake baked there, then go to virtually any local supermarket nowadays and had slogans/pictures etc. put onto it....rather than do that, they decided to take someone to court instead...over a fucking cake! The customer did the whole thing as a PR exercise as he's a gay rights activist and wants to make a point despite him having no legal standing (hence them losing the case at the Supreme court).
As Salop says, there is no law anywhere to say any business HAS to write things that go against any personal beliefs they hold. It's basically an open and shut case which is why the customers lost it already. It's also not a case against the bakers anyway, its against the UK itself and whether or not they contravened rules by giving the original rulings.
Why should they have to go elsewhere? I agree legally it's no case, but I can still think the bakers are dicks.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 15, 2019 19:59:51 GMT
Why should they have to go elsewhere? I agree legally it's no case, but I can still think the bakers are dicks. Do you think the bakers have a phobia or just an opinion? Something in inconsistent with this case. On one hand they say it's not in line with their beliefs to support gay marriage. On the other hand they say they would have done the same if it were a hetero sexual couple. So they don't believe in marriage at all? Or is it just about putting a sign on a cake or not, no matter what the message is?
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 15, 2019 20:03:22 GMT
So oh, if we could only devise a way of searching some kind of international network to discover the conclusions of such studies! International studies and network won't be necessary, if you don't think for instance financial situation is one of the main background factors of becoming gay. There are already several existing reports on the genetics and epigenetics and its likely effect on sexuality. I won't be able to translate them now. It's also easier when I got another internet, so I can give links for the curious ones. The tricky part with this kind of research is to get people with funds interested to support it financially, because it can be considered a bit controvercial. The state won't give any support, that's for sure. I don't see why increased knowledge can ever be a problem. Discussing sexuality without a scientific medical approach is pretty pointless. I was just being facetious musik. “financial situation is one of the main background factors of becoming gay” is certainly a bold statement though! (Not entirely sure whether you were saying that’s something you believe or not)
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 15, 2019 20:20:47 GMT
International studies and network won't be necessary, if you don't think for instance financial situation is one of the main background factors of becoming gay. There are already several existing reports on the genetics and epigenetics and its likely effect on sexuality. I won't be able to translate them now. It's also easier when I got another internet, so I can give links for the curious ones. The tricky part with this kind of research is to get people with funds interested to support it financially, because it can be considered a bit controvercial. The state won't give any support, that's for sure. I don't see why increased knowledge can ever be a problem. Discussing sexuality without a scientific medical approach is pretty pointless. I was just being facetious musik. “financial situation is one of the main background factors of becoming gay” is certainly a bold statement though! (Not entirely sure whether you were saying that’s something you believe or not) Misunderstandings can occur since English isn't my native language. But I do what I can. In time getting better. I wrote "IF" Probably it should have been "UNLESS"? I don' t know if it has been examined yet. I don't "believe" it myself. On the other hand, I don't believe in anything when it's science. There I search for facts. I only believe when it's about souls.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Aug 15, 2019 20:34:22 GMT
Their business Their labour Their time Their beliefs
Should be end of. Not this horrendously authoritarian bullying to get everyone to kowtow to the same thing.
If they don't like being told no, use a different baker. If enough people agree with them then they will boycott the baker and he'll go bust, such is the glory of the free market, people exercising choice and democracy in its purest form.
The idea of making them bake the cake under threat of violence (arrest) is a breathtaking display of governmental overreach to the point that I would actually call it slavery, because you are denying them autonomy over what labour they are willing to put in.
Anyone on the side of the gay couple in this sorry story are complicit in encouraging tyranny.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Aug 15, 2019 20:37:17 GMT
They didn't refuse to bake a cake though. They agreed to bake the cake and knew it was for a gay marriage, they simply refused to do it in the end because of the slogan that was being insisted upon. The couple could very easily have had the cake baked there, then go to virtually any local supermarket nowadays and had slogans/pictures etc. put onto it....rather than do that, they decided to take someone to court instead...over a fucking cake! The customer did the whole thing as a PR exercise as he's a gay rights activist and wants to make a point despite him having no legal standing (hence them losing the case at the Supreme court).
As Salop says, there is no law anywhere to say any business HAS to write things that go against any personal beliefs they hold. It's basically an open and shut case which is why the customers lost it already. It's also not a case against the bakers anyway, its against the UK itself and whether or not they contravened rules by giving the original rulings.
Why should they have to go elsewhere? I agree legally it's no case, but I can still think the bakers are dicks. They should have to go elsewhere because it's none of their business. Thankfully there's no law against being a dick either, or else half of us would be locked up in the clink!
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Aug 16, 2019 6:50:04 GMT
They didn't refuse to bake a cake though. They agreed to bake the cake and knew it was for a gay marriage, they simply refused to do it in the end because of the slogan that was being insisted upon. The couple could very easily have had the cake baked there, then go to virtually any local supermarket nowadays and had slogans/pictures etc. put onto it....rather than do that, they decided to take someone to court instead...over a fucking cake! The customer did the whole thing as a PR exercise as he's a gay rights activist and wants to make a point despite him having no legal standing (hence them losing the case at the Supreme court).
As Salop says, there is no law anywhere to say any business HAS to write things that go against any personal beliefs they hold. It's basically an open and shut case which is why the customers lost it already. It's also not a case against the bakers anyway, its against the UK itself and whether or not they contravened rules by giving the original rulings.
Why should they have to go elsewhere? I agree legally it's no case, but I can still think the bakers are dicks. Because that particular shop does not supply the product they want.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 11:44:34 GMT
Why should they have to go elsewhere? I agree legally it's no case, but I can still think the bakers are dicks. Because that particular shop does not supply the product they want. It does, but the shop owner is being a dick.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 16, 2019 12:00:05 GMT
Because that particular shop does not supply the product they want. It does, but the shop owner is being a dick. The wisdom of youth No he is not. The owner does not want to print a slogan he is uncomfortable with. If he refused the customer for being gay it would be illegal. He is not refusing the customer for being gay. He is refusing to use his paid time and resources to decorate a cake that is at odds with his belief. He is happy to make the gay customer a cake with no slogan There is a difference and no one can force him to either. The baker will win because he hasn’t been discrinatory despite what the customer says The customer is using this for agenda. He is no different to crash for cash scammers
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Aug 16, 2019 15:08:38 GMT
He was on TV saying it was essential that limited companies should provide their products to everyone.
Whether its a limited company has no bearing on this at all. I don't think he understands the difference between a public listed company and a private company for starters.
As an owner of 100% of a private limited company I would go to any limits to defend my right to deal with whoever i like, and tell those who i don't like to do one. Otherwise I cannot tell any rude, overbearing, self entitled, and ignorant bullies who would make my staff's lives a misery, to go elsewhere. Adopting his argument would stop a pub from refusing to serve an obnoxious loud mouthed drunk. Clearly wrong on so many counts.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Aug 16, 2019 17:04:02 GMT
It does, but the shop owner is being a dick. The wisdom of youthNo he is not. The owner does not want to print a slogan he is uncomfortable with. If he refused the customer for being gay it would be illegal. He is not refusing the customer for being gay. He is refusing to use his paid time and resources to decorate a cake that is at odds with his belief. He is happy to make the gay customer a cake with no slogan There is a difference and no one can force him to either. The baker will win because he hasn’t been discrinatory despite what the customer says The customer is using this for agenda. He is no different to crash for cash scammers Be careful being ageist, you might get sued
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Aug 16, 2019 17:22:38 GMT
This is a tough one as it involves conflicting “rights”.
The right of Religious Freedom vs Gay Rights.
I wouldn’t criticise either side more than the other apart from wishing they’d find a way to resolve this amicably.
I don’t think this case is such a big topic that it merits huge amounts of public money being spent on it when we all know that money could be spent better elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Aug 16, 2019 22:33:34 GMT
Because that particular shop does not supply the product they want. It does, but the shop owner is being a dick. No, it doesn’t. Customer wants a cake that says a specific message. Cake shop can supply cake but not message. It’s pretty straightforward. Go somewhere else for message. Job done. Just to be clear for you - slogans/messages are part of the product - capability to supply does not mean necessity to supply. There are plenty of shops that can do more than they do.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 9:34:19 GMT
It does, but the shop owner is being a dick. No, it doesn’t. Customer wants a cake that says a specific message. Cake shop can supply cake but not message. It’s pretty straightforward. Go somewhere else for message. Job done. Just to be clear for you - slogans/messages are part of the product - capability to supply does not mean necessity to supply. There are plenty of shops that can do more than they do. Oh I know the shop has the right to refuse, and I think refusing to write that for their reasons is the sign of an arse.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 17, 2019 21:36:44 GMT
I wonder what sign/s they would have accepted to make for the cake? 🤔
Man Utd badge? Jesus? Shiva? A body part? Lenin? ABBA?
|
|
|
Post by mattador78 on Aug 18, 2019 8:31:33 GMT
Wasn't the slogan 'support gay marriage'? If the bakers are so against something that has no affect on them that they won't even write the words on a cake then sod em. Hope the court gives the customers something. But it does affect the bakers, it affects their chosen beliefs. Rightly or wrongly, they should be allowed to uphold their own beliefs - sod the customer if they want something the business doesn't want to supply. The customer is not always right. Late in on this one I know, where I work Rolls Royce approached us to complete a project for them. They laid down a specification for us to work to, so we read it and told them fuck off as it was not feasible. I’ve spent the last twelve months rewriting it arguing with someone who doesn’t know my job telling me how to do it. Sending repeated test samples off proving us right and them wrong, to have to do it again just to make sure as they have changed the parameters. This week I will sign off the document for the new specification with them, with all of our changes in and no compliance to their initial excessive demands. The customer is not always right they are only right if you agree with them. As for the gay bit could have been resolved if people were grown up and the customer had said Sid it and gone somewhere else or if the baker had said look we’ve done it this one time not something we are comfortable with not doing it again. You know acted like grownups
|
|
|
Post by eebygum on Aug 20, 2019 10:54:45 GMT
Their business Their labour Their time Their beliefs Should be end of. Not this horrendously authoritarian bullying to get everyone to kowtow to the same thing. If they don't like being told no, use a different baker. If enough people agree with them then they will boycott the baker and he'll go bust, such is the glory of the free market, people exercising choice and democracy in its purest form. The idea of making them bake the cake under threat of violence (arrest) is a breathtaking display of governmental overreach to the point that I would actually call it slavery, because you are denying them autonomy over what labour they are willing to put in. Anyone on the side of the gay couple in this sorry story are complicit in encouraging tyranny.
Sharp 'un - unda free market capitalism does thee think 'a' everyone is free? are theear neya cicrumstances wheear citizens are compelled ta act unda tyranny or coercion o' enny form?
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Aug 20, 2019 11:51:15 GMT
Their business Their labour Their time Their beliefs Should be end of. Not this horrendously authoritarian bullying to get everyone to kowtow to the same thing. If they don't like being told no, use a different baker. If enough people agree with them then they will boycott the baker and he'll go bust, such is the glory of the free market, people exercising choice and democracy in its purest form. The idea of making them bake the cake under threat of violence (arrest) is a breathtaking display of governmental overreach to the point that I would actually call it slavery, because you are denying them autonomy over what labour they are willing to put in. Anyone on the side of the gay couple in this sorry story are complicit in encouraging tyranny. Sharp 'un - unda free market capitalism does thee think 'a' everyone is free? are theear neya cicrumstances wheear citizens are compelled ta act unda tyranny or coercion o' enny form?
Happy to argue with you if you speak properly.
|
|
|
Post by eebygum on Aug 20, 2019 11:53:54 GMT
Sharp 'un - unda free market capitalism does thee think 'a' everyone is free? are theear neya cicrumstances wheear citizens are compelled ta act unda tyranny or coercion o' enny form?
Happy to argue with you if you speak properly. Onny if theur apologise for thy rudeness t'wards uz.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Aug 20, 2019 12:10:40 GMT
Happy to argue with you if you speak properly. Onny if theur apologise for thy rudeness t'wards uz. Happy to apologise and move on with our lives if you admit this shtick is purely trolling.
|
|
|
Post by vokeswagen on Aug 20, 2019 12:21:35 GMT
It does, but the shop owner is being a dick. The wisdom of youth No he is not. The owner does not want to print a slogan he is uncomfortable with. If he refused the customer for being gay it would be illegal. He is not refusing the customer for being gay. He is refusing to use his paid time and resources to decorate a cake that is at odds with his belief. He is happy to make the gay customer a cake with no slogan There is a difference and no one can force him to either. The baker will win because he hasn’t been discrinatory despite what the customer says The customer is using this for agenda. He is no different to crash for cash scammers Hypothetical example: the owner of a racist cake shop - let's call it Ku Klux Flan - is prepared to serve white people with cakes decorated with swastikas and so on. But is NOT prepared to serve black customers with cakes decorated with pictures of Marcus Garvey and so on because it's at odds with his belief. Is the owner of Ku Klux Flan - let's call him carpsbaker - being discriminatory?
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 20, 2019 15:05:33 GMT
Sharp 'un - unda free market capitalism does thee think 'a' everyone is free? are theear neya cicrumstances wheear citizens are compelled ta act unda tyranny or coercion o' enny form?
Interest topic. I was about to bring it up myself, somewhere. In a market capitalist society noone is free, the richer the more free of course, but not even them. In a communist totally state controlled society noone is free either. The thing with Liberalism I find difficult is despite there are several different kind of Liberalism, noone is more or less an utopia. Even if it sounds terrific, everyone can't be free. You can't have Liberalism and get everybody(!) happy at the same time, even if that is what Liberals claim. There are always people that will be forgotten. Actions affect other people, every single decision affect someone else. And in a state controlled system, it's hard to see anyone who is free, apart from some high party member's. But personally, I see it more philosophically. Noone is free by nature. Everything(!) is coercion.
|
|
|
Post by melbournestokie21 on Aug 20, 2019 15:18:27 GMT
Keeping the politics out of it can we get to the morally right thing to do or best law for it.
I to thought it should be the bakers right to refuse, hes clearly being provoked (if that was their intention).
However someone pointed out though I spose its a stretch religion to race..
That you wouldnt refuse service to say a black man or a russian.. miner... or office worker and so on because you dont like them.
When you consider it like that it really is discrimination (presuming there is no other alternative)
I hope the couple get what they deserve for stunt, but it is hard to genuinely be against it from a morale standpoint.
Maybe Im wrong who knows, I dont know just my understanding
|
|