Christian bakers in 'gay cake' row did not discriminate against same-sex marriage activist, Supreme Court rules

First topic message reminder :

e Christian owners of a bakery have won an appeal at the UK's highest court over a finding that they discriminated against a customer by refusing to make a cake decorated with the words "Support Gay Marriage".

Five Supreme Court justices allowed a challenge by the McArthur family in a unanimous ruling in London on Wednesday in what has become widely known as the "gay cake case".

The legal action was originally brought against family-run Ashers bakery in Belfast by gay rights activist Gareth Lee, who won his case initially in the county court and then at the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/10/christian-owners-bakery-win-appeal-discrimination-ruling-refusing/



Common sense prevails at last!!!


Nobody should be forced to promote a political opinion that they do not want to!

Syl wrote:Well the Supreme court found there was justification Quill.

But the justification was in artifice. As hallowed as the US Constitution is, it is still something that was created by men.

If we are talking about morals, all you have against homosexuality is the it's different that me defense. Gays don't bother anybody. It's none of your business what they do. You can lay it off on the bible, but like the Constitution, that's a cop-out. There is no moral theory that justifies an anti-gay stance.

Tommy Monk wrote:Nobody should be forced to promote a political opinion that they do not want to!

They are not promoting anything.  They are doing their jobs, decorating a cake. The worst you can say is: It has no meaning to them.

Eilzel wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well the Supreme court found there was justification Quill.

That's because, with all due respect, as a society we still entertain beliefs in an invisible supreme being as a viable reason for allowing backward views and actions (e.g. the burkha, ritual slaughter, circumcision and yes, opposing gay marriage).

I actually feel a bit like the devils advocate here, because obviously I do support marriage be it between gays, straights, or anyone else who wants to prove their love by getting hitched.

But I also think the views of the minority should be respected ....and if a person owns his own company, he should be able to make his own decisions PROVIDED he is acting within the law as it stands now and he is not personally discriminating against anyone.
He would have made the cake, he would have decorated it as asked, he just refused to write the message because it went against his religious beliefs.

Why should the gay couple not accept this?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Well the Supreme court found there was justification Quill.

But the justification was in artifice.  As hallowed as the US Constitution is, it is still something that was created by men.

If we are talking about morals, all you have against homosexuality is the it's different that me defense.  Gays don't bother anybody.  It's none of your business what they do.  You can lay it off on the bible, but like the Constitution, that's a cop-out.  There is no moral theory that justifies an anti-gay stance.

Syl is not against homosexuality and neither am I, but the gay activist in the article wascertainly out to cause trouble

These gays were deliberately out to rob this religious couple of their money. Knowing the couple would refuse to promote a view on a cake they disagreed with. Hence why the Law over here backed the religious couple. No doubt this gay activist went around bakers, until he got a hit, refusing them.

They were miltant gay that set out and engineered to set this couple up. Who disgustingly believe their gay rights should trump all other's rights.

So best you check the morality of this gay activist that set out to decieve and rob people of their business, livelyhood and money.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Well the Supreme court found there was justification Quill.

But the justification was in artifice.  As hallowed as the US Constitution is, it is still something that was created by men.

If we are talking about morals, all you have against homosexuality is the it's different that me defense.  Gays don't bother anybody.  It's none of your business what they do.  You can lay it off on the bible, but like the Constitution, that's a cop-out.  There is no moral theory that justifies an anti-gay stance.

All laws and rulings were created by men...the bible was written by men, if you follow the law and believe in the bible you cant pick and choose which bits you will uphold.

He (the baker) wasnt anti gay....he would have made the cake for goodness sake, he might have even bought them a bloody wedding pressie, he just didnt want to write a message he didnt believe in.

Syl wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

That's because, with all due respect, as a society we still entertain beliefs in an invisible supreme being as a viable reason for allowing backward views and actions (e.g. the burkha, ritual slaughter, circumcision and yes, opposing gay marriage).

I actually feel a bit like the devils advocate here, because obviously I do support marriage be it between gays, straights, or anyone else who wants to prove their love by getting hitched.

But I also think the views of the minority should be respected ....and if a person owns his own company, he should be able to make his own decisions PROVIDED he is acting within the law as it stands now and he is not personally discriminating against anyone.
He would have made the cake, he would have decorated it as asked, he just refused to write the message because it went against his religious beliefs.

Why should the gay couple not accept this?

It's all right to argue from a devil's advocate position.

So, it always comes down to a property argument. But, property has no value unless the community gives it a value. So, who gets to call the shots, the individual property holder or the community? The individual can take his property away; but the community can take it's value away.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But the justification was in artifice.  As hallowed as the US Constitution is, it is still something that was created by men.

If we are talking about morals, all you have against homosexuality is the it's different that me defense.  Gays don't bother anybody.  It's none of your business what they do.  You can lay it off on the bible, but like the Constitution, that's a cop-out.  There is no moral theory that justifies an anti-gay stance.

Syl is not against homosexuality and neither am I, but the gay activist in the article wascertainly out to cause trouble

These gays were deliberately out to rob this religious couple of their money. Knowing the couple would refuse to promote a view on a cake they disagreed with. Hence why the Law over here backed the religious couple. No doubt this gay activist went around bakers, until he got a hit, refusing them.

They were miltant gay that set out and engineered to set this couple up. Who disgustingly believe their gay rights should trump all other's rights.

So best you check the morality of this gay activist that set out to decieve and rob people of their business, livelyhood and money.

Hopefully Quill was talking generally.
Being able to see both sides of a situation doesnt make anyone (including me) anti anything....and I am certainly not anti gay.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But the justification was in artifice.  As hallowed as the US Constitution is, it is still something that was created by men.

If we are talking about morals, all you have against homosexuality is the it's different that me defense.  Gays don't bother anybody.  It's none of your business what they do.  You can lay it off on the bible, but like the Constitution, that's a cop-out.  There is no moral theory that justifies an anti-gay stance.

All laws and rulings were created by men...the bible was written by men,  if you follow the law and believe in the bible you cant pick and choose which bits you will uphold.

He (the baker) wasnt anti gay....he would have made the cake for goodness sake, he might have even bought them a bloody wedding pressie, he just didnt want to write a message he didnt believe in.

Some here think some groups should have more rights than others sadly Syl

The man in the article admits to being a gay activist, which is enough to see how badly this was engineered by him, to bring about a law suit

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


Syl is not against homosexuality and neither am I, but the gay activist in the article wascertainly out to cause trouble

These gays were deliberately out to rob this religious couple of their money. Knowing the couple would refuse to promote a view on a cake they disagreed with. Hence why the Law over here backed the religious couple. No doubt this gay activist went around bakers, until he got a hit, refusing them.

They were miltant gay that set out and engineered to set this couple up. Who disgustingly believe their gay rights should trump all other's rights.

So best you check the morality of this gay activist that set out to decieve and rob people of their business, livelyhood and money.

Hopefully Quill was talking generally.
Being able to see both sides of a situation doesnt make anyone (including me) anti anything....and I am certainly not anti gay.

I know you are not, but he did seem to be talking to you, as if you were. Hence why I thought it prudent to say so .

Some cannot be impartial here like us and we both support gay rights.

This was never about gay rights though

It was about trumping the rights of religious people and it failed

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

All laws and rulings were created by men...the bible was written by men,  if you follow the law and believe in the bible you cant pick and choose which bits you will uphold.

He (the baker) wasnt anti gay....he would have made the cake for goodness sake, he might have even bought them a bloody wedding pressie, he just didnt want to write a message he didnt believe in.

Some here think some groups should have more rights than others sadly Syl

The man in the article admits to being a gay activist, which is enough to see how badly this was engineered by him, to bring about a law suit

Sadly I think that was the case.
Happily it didnt work.

Didge wrote:Some here think some groups should have more rights than others sadly Syl

It's generally compensatory. Unfortunately, it's a human trait to lock people into groups. And, when grouped, to discriminate against some. The extreme case is racial discrimination.

When discrimination has settled in, there is naught to do but to undo it. What you see as "more rights" is generally mere adjustments in the form of remedial efforts. For example, here in the US, where we've had a history of racial grouping, school busing —> mixture in education —> equality of opportunity —> social and economic homogenization (melting pot thesis). These are the remedial efforts.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Some here think some groups should have more rights than others sadly Syl

It's generally compensatory.  

And there you have it in black and white

A promotional view to discriminate and have inequality

The absurd view to compensate people who suffered no wrongs today, but what some of their ancestors suffered in the past and make another group living today pay for this. That did nothing to them

So no mere adjustments. As equality means, equality for everyone and nobody's rights should trump others

As seen here this gay activist, who incidently has the worst morals, got taken to task with this court decision and rightly so

This gay activist tries to trump the rights of others and got burnt doing so

Didge wrote:The absurd view to compensate people who suffered no wrongs today...

There's the lie, right there. Culturally, they started late in the race, and they are still the subject of discrimination holding them back.



Classic, white, privileged denial.

That is a pathetic victim mentality by Quill. Invented by the likes of people that suffer ostrich parasitic syndrome. They want to make people feel downtdrodeen, when they have every opportunity like every one else. You beat people down enough as you do Quill. Its no wonder many feel like they cannot succeed when they can. So nobody started late, when they are born and raised in western countries. 

One thing is apparant and has been for sometime. You certainly do not adhere to liberal principles like equality. You want to advantage people over others based on identity politics. Its pure prejudice and discrimination such mentality and all based off some invented guilt you perceive you have, based on you being male and having fair skin.

As seen by your use of identity politics and being racial, basing this on the colour of my skin. As if my skin colour makes me somehow biologically a bad person. Its the same idiotic pusdeo scientific racism. That has gone unabated since the 19th century and now the Far left have taken up this mantle as its champion. Promoting the same racist methodology, but now towards people classed white.

I mean considering I grew up in poverty and am a mixed ethnic minority. Maybe you can explain how I have been priviledged in any way? Compared to non-white citizens in this country?

You have no idea and hence your identity politics label, is born from the worst and poorest discrimination and prejudice. As you are judging people by the colour of their skin and think this acceptable to groups you believe have power. Its a new form of bullshit from the suffers of ostrich parasitic syndrome. That to you, white people cannot suffer any form of racism. Which is absurd and proves again the inequality thinking of the Far and regressive left. This is why more and more people are shifting to the right in the west, because of the likes of having to deal with people of your hate and prejudice daily.

veya_victaous wrote:

Sadly, this ruling goes against points 1, 2 and 3 on 'WHAT IT DOES NOT COVER' there

The ruling doesn't go against those points. Lee was not discriminated against for being gay. If he'd wanted a cake which had no slogan on it, they would not have refused to make it. If a non-gay person had asked for the cake, they would still have refused to make it.

I agree, a disgusting step away from secular values in my opinion

I have to say, I'm torn about this one. On the one hand, I fully support gay marriage as a civil right. On the other hand, I don't think anybody should be forced to participate in expression that they disagree with.

On the third hand, a business that can refuse to serve someone on the basis of something like gay marriage support effectively creates a second class of citizenship, which doesn't enjoy the same freedoms as the "first class" (people who oppose gay marriage), so I'd probably have to come down on the side of, "if it ain't hate speech, write on the damn cake for the paying customers!"

When I first heard of this story, I thought it was just wedding cake, not a cake with a slogan.

Imagine the outrage if a Muslim baker was asked to use the slogan Allah is a Cunt on a nice bit of fruitcake.

HoratioTarr wrote:Imagine the outrage if a Muslim baker was asked to use the slogan Allah is a Cunt on a nice bit of fruitcake.

HT wrote:Imagine the outrage if a Muslim baker was asked to use the slogan Allah is a Cunt on a nice bit of fruitcake.

Yes, Allah was clearly a man.  

Stung by his local Walmart’s refusal to make him a cake with the confederate flag design, Chuck Netzhammer asked the supermarket to bake him a cake sporting the Isis flag.

Walmart staff in Slidell, Louisiana, agreed to his request, seemingly unaware that Islamic State is more synonymous with brutal beheadings of “infidels” than fondant fancies.

Mr Netzhammer had been incensed when Walmart said it could not bake him a cake with the confederate flag, alongside the words “Heritage Not Hate”.

The southern battle flag has been at the centre of controversy since the 17 June Charleston shootings of nine black churchgoers, allegedly carried out by Dylann Roof, who had posed for pictures holding the flag. Walmart is no longer selling selling “confederate flag-related items promoting the flag’s image”.

Mr Netzhammer took to YouTube (video above) to make his feelings known, saying: “I attempted to get an edible image cake printed with the confederate flag image on it at Walmart. It was denied. The next day I had them do the same for the Isis battle flag image I brought to them. They cheerfully did it. and sold me my Isis cake.

“Isis is beheading Christians, selling little girls into slavery, and is currently a terrorist org at war with the United States.”

Walmart apologised for baking the $20 cake, saying it had made a mistake and that a member of staff “didn’t recognise what that image was and what it meant or it wouldn’t have been made”.

https://www.channel4.com/news/walmart-sorry-for-making-that-isis-cake

Now in this instance the Southern man was refused his cake with a Confederate Flag, but an ISIS flag was okay to make

Now does Eilzel still hold his stance, that such a cake supporting ISIS be made?

Or can he see that some people. No matter, if I disagree with their beliefs against gay marriage and will be highly critical of their beliefs. Has a right to refuse to promote a message on a cake they disagree with?

Just as Walmart did, with refusing to make a cake promoting the Confederate Flag?

Now contrary to what Veya thinks and as usual he gets it completely wrong. That is Secularism in practice and liberalism. Where a person has a right to refuse to promote a view/belief on something they create or make within their buisness.

So let me just paint this picture for you

Confederacy is a concept and a belief
Marriage is a concept and a belief
ISIS is a concept and a belief

I wonder what Eilzel would do when confronted by a supporter of the Taliban asked for a cake that stated "support child marriage"?

To the Taliban and its saliffism belief system and as stated he said people should have to make cakes on order.

Would he force such an owner to make a cake?

Of course not

Yes its wrong for someone to believe that two adults of the same sex, cannot marry. That is down to their poor backward religious beliefs. But so is it backwards for a gay activist to go around trying to create a lawsuit, to suit their political agenda.

You dont right a wrong, by creating another wrong.

You then make yourself as bigoted as the person with the religious bigoted view towards homosexuals. As you form a view of prejudice against the religious person and look to discriminate them, on their beliefs

That is not equality and what we see here is some try to take advantage of equality laws to enforce their prejudice and discrimination against a bakery that has praticing religious owners.

As much as i think its ridiculous that some Muslims refuse to touch alcohol, none here would force them to do so within employment. Just as none here would force someone vegan to touch meat. They would dumb to employ them if then said roles were going to be their employment, but the point is, you should never force people to go against their beliefs. As you end up discriminating against them. No matter how absurd or dumb their beliefs are.

No I'm right, you're just not liberal or progressive enough

let them have their flag cakes

unless it is an 'illegal' request, the business that sells message/image on cake should do it.
the BUSINESS should not have the right to dictate 'morality' to humans in society, the humans in society should dictate the businesses morality.

And in a Blazing Right Wing economic attitude LET those that can't do the job because of some personal choice, not do the job they can go do something else.

veya_victaous wrote:No I'm right, you're just not liberal or progressive enough

let them have their flag cakes

unless it is an 'illegal' request, the business that sells message/image on cake should do it.
the BUSINESS should not have the right to dictate 'morality' to humans in society, the humans in society should dictate the businesses morality.

And in a Blazing Right Wing economic attitude LET those that can't do the job because of some personal choice, not do the job they can go do something else.

How is forcing people a liberal trait?

Please explain that to me?

Nobody is actually denying their cakes with flags, are they?

The company is not denying them a cake, but a cake with a certain message.

Can you actually grasp that?

Just that buisness is rightly able to refuse to do so, because they disagree with the message portrayed

So nothing is illegal here, but a company rightly refusing to promote a message they do not agree with

Unless you think its okay for a company to make a cake for the Taliban supporting child marriage or sex slaves?

So how about those trying to enforce their views, as you are doing. Understand, that there is nothing liberal about this, and that you are being very illiberal.

So lets take this a step further

I mean what next, are you going to force Australian companies to sell ISIS flags?

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:No I'm right, you're just not liberal or progressive enough

let them have their flag cakes

unless it is an 'illegal' request, the business that sells message/image on cake should do it.
the BUSINESS should not have the right to dictate 'morality' to humans in society, the humans in society should dictate the businesses morality.

And in a Blazing Right Wing economic attitude LET those that can't do the job because of some personal choice, not do the job they can go do something else.

How is forcing people a liberal trait?

Please explain that to me?

Nobody is actually denying their cakes with flags, are they?

The company is not denying them a cake, but a cake with a certain message.

Can you actually grasp that?

Just that buisness is rightly able to refuse to do so, because they disagree with the message portrayed

So nothing is illegal here, but a company rightly refusing to promote a message they do not agree with

Unless you think its okay for a company to make a cake for the Taliban supporting child marriage or sex slaves?

So how about those trying to enforce their views, as you are doing. Understand, that there is nothing liberal about this, and that you are being very illiberal.

So lets take this a step further

I mean what next, are you going to force Australian companies to sell ISIS flags?

I'm not forcing any Human just businesses 
It's you saying a Business should be able to dictate political and religious views on society
I refute the Business right to not print a political message,
imagine if all the printing presses got together and refused to Print Pamphlets for a political party
Which under your 'misconception of freedom' is fine, because you don't want to force businesses to provide services fairly and equally.
You will set the precedent that Businesses have a right to political obstruction.


And your thing about child sex slaves is rubbish as that is ILLEGAL
see society used it's Democratic system to define Morality and say that is unacceptable, we did not leave it up to some Business's preference!!!

Didge wrote:How is forcing people a liberal trait?

It's not. Remember when, during Vietnam, they enforced conscription? And isn't the entire criminal code a conservative mandate (except privileged rapists named Kavanaugh)?

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


How is forcing people a liberal trait?

Please explain that to me?

Nobody is actually denying their cakes with flags, are they?

The company is not denying them a cake, but a cake with a certain message.

Can you actually grasp that?

Just that buisness is rightly able to refuse to do so, because they disagree with the message portrayed

So nothing is illegal here, but a company rightly refusing to promote a message they do not agree with

Unless you think its okay for a company to make a cake for the Taliban supporting child marriage or sex slaves?

So how about those trying to enforce their views, as you are doing. Understand, that there is nothing liberal about this, and that you are being very illiberal.

So lets take this a step further

I mean what next, are you going to force Australian companies to sell ISIS flags?

I'm not forcing any Human just businesses 
It's you saying a Business should be able to dictate political and religious views on society
I refute the Business right to not print a political message,
imagine if all the printing presses got together and refused to Print Pamphlets for a political party
Which under your 'misconception of freedom' is fine, because you don't want to force businesses to provide services fairly and equally.
You will set the precedent that Businesses have a right to political obstruction.


And your thing about child sex slaves is rubbish as that is ILLEGAL
see society used it's Democratic system to define Morality and say that is unacceptable, we did not leave it up to some Business's preference!!!

Well buisnesses are run by humans and thus by extension you are forcing humans

Which means you would then force a Sallafist Muslim to touch and sell pork or even alcohol

Your example is so absurd, that all printing companies would refuse to print for political parties simple does not hold sway.

Even the most racist companies can and even do, obtain printing facilities

Hence moot argument

Of course companies can have a right to politicl neutrality and so they should.

Hence they have a right not to then  be seen to be with any side of the political argument

Yet you think they should

Wow

Now here is how it works and to break this down for you in simplest terms and hope that you understand what equality is, because you clearly have not a clue.

A company can refuse to create a message on is product, no matter who asks for this. Not matter what group they represent.

Thus the denial is universal to all customers

Do you understand that?

Hence its not discrimination

Hence its equality

Actually its not rubbish about child marriage

https://www.girlsnotbrides.org/where-does-it-happen/

Business are separate legal entities than the humans that own them, if they are under different tax laws then there is no logical reason to presume other laws should be the same.

No I'm not forcing any Human to touch or sell anything, everyone is free to work somewhere suitable to 'work ethic' or be unemployed


It is Rubbish, that it is something that one could be legally asked to print in Australia, in fact you'd probably have more legal compulsion to have to report the requester to Authorities ..... Now you want to argue it is a 'political rights' issue which my response is fine, like those that first campaigned for gay rights, black rights etc they can, and they can  get arrested too just like the original campaigners for the other rights movements and 'test their luck' in the court of public opinion...

veya_victaous wrote:Business are separate legal entities than the humans that own them, if they are under different tax laws then there is no logical reason to presume other laws should be the same.

No I'm not forcing any Human to touch or sell anything, everyone is free to work somewhere suitable to 'work ethic' or be unemployed


It is Rubbish, that it is something that one could be legally asked to print in Australia, in fact you'd probably have more legal compulsion to have to report the requester to Authorities ..... Now you want to argue it is a 'political rights' issue which my response is fine, like those that first campaigned for gay rights, black rights etc they can, and they can  get arrested too just like the original campaigners for the other rights movements and 'test their luck' in the court of public opinion...

Buisnesses, are privately owned by many people

Thus your view has no bases, as long as they abide by the laws and in this case they are

A company does not have to promote an image it doees not agree with.

Unless you think companies should promote smoking, anorexia, self harm, suicide etc?

So you really are talking rubbish, as a company has a right to say what they will promote and what they will not promote, as long as its universal in its buisness.

The problem with you veya, as you have not even the first clue what you are talking about and hence why. Everyday, I am so easily able to tie you up in knots

Didge wrote:A company does not have to promote an image it doees not agree with.

Sooo...we could just do away with taxes, eh? Wonderful.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:A company does not have to promote an image it doees not agree with.

Sooo...we could just do away with taxes, eh?  Wonderful.

Really?

Not sure how you came to that deluded conclusion, but am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, to make me fall about laughing at how ridiculous your view is.

Please elaborate

I daresay the ISIS flag was not known to the person who took the order, so that was a mistake, as they said. I think it's fine for a business to refuse to make a cake with a message that they don't approve of. The customer is free to go elsewhere.

There's lots of Gays around looking for something they can be upset about !

HoratioTarr wrote:Imagine the outrage if a Muslim baker was asked to use the slogan Allah is a Cunt on a nice bit of fruitcake.

A better comparison would be if a Muslim baker were forced to make a cake reading Support Gay Marriage.

Unless you mean that suppression of gay people is as important to Christians as Allah is to Muslims ...

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:Imagine the outrage if a Muslim baker was asked to use the slogan Allah is a Cunt on a nice bit of fruitcake.

A better comparison would be if a Muslim baker were forced to make a cake reading Support Gay Marriage.

Unless you mean that suppression of gay people is as important to Christians as Allah is to Muslims ...

suppression?

not in this case

nicko wrote:There's lots of Gays around looking for something they can be upset about !

There's a lot of people looking for something to be upset about to be honest. Be it SJWs crying over someone being called 'he'...

Or Daily Mail readers bitching about how their country is being overrun by people who speak funny, gay people destroying the family or Jeremy Corbyn not wearing a tie

Yeah, always someone getting upset about something

HoratioTarr wrote:Imagine the outrage if a Muslim baker was asked to use the slogan Allah is a Cunt on a nice bit of fruitcake.

They wouldn't dare ask , it seem Christianity is the faith being attacked . Not a pity party just a fact .

Eilzel wrote:

nicko wrote:There's lots of Gays around looking for something they can be upset about !

There's a lot of people looking for something to be upset about to be honest. Be it SJWs crying over someone being called 'he'...

Or Daily Mail readers bitching about how their country is being overrun by people who speak funny, gay people destroying the family or Jeremy Corbyn not wearing a tie

Yeah, always someone getting upset about something

I guess you are also joining in the moaning gang then cos you're dong enough of it lately .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:Imagine the outrage if a Muslim baker was asked to use the slogan Allah is a Cunt on a nice bit of fruitcake.

They wouldn't dare ask , it seem Christianity is the faith being attacked . Not a pity party just a fact .

Asking for a cake calling any god a cunt would be disgusting and offensive. No one would ask for such a thing.

And come off it, Christianity is not being attacked. One man wanted a cake and his motives at worst were to get publicity.

Eilzel wrote:

nicko wrote:There's lots of Gays around looking for something they can be upset about !

There's a lot of people looking for something to be upset about to be honest. Be it SJWs crying over someone being called 'he'...

Or Daily Mail readers bitching about how their country is being overrun by people who speak funny, gay people destroying the family or Jeremy Corbyn not wearing a tie

Yeah, always someone getting upset about something

I agree. Gays, straights, and everyone in between, blacks, whites, Jews, Muslims Christians...everyone has a viewpoint and no one should be thrusting their opinions so forcefully on others. The sense of entitlement some people think they have over others is getting ridiculous....why cant people just be reasonable..

Syl wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

nicko wrote:There's lots of Gays around looking for something they can be upset about !

There's a lot of people looking for something to be upset about to be honest. Be it SJWs crying over someone being called 'he'...

Or Daily Mail readers bitching about how their country is being overrun by people who speak funny, gay people destroying the family or Jeremy Corbyn not wearing a tie

Yeah, always someone getting upset about something

I agree. Gays, straights, and everyone in between, blacks, whites, Jews, Muslims Christians...everyone has a viewpoint and no one should be thrusting their opinions so forcefully on others. The sense of entitlement some people think they have over others is getting ridiculous....why cant people just be reasonable..

Because what's reasonable to some is ridiculous to others. Though, the only time this ever seems to be an issue is where religion is concerned, and little wonder since all religions individually are not believed by most people.

Eilzel wrote:

Syl wrote:

I agree. Gays, straights, and everyone in between, blacks, whites, Jews, Muslims Christians...everyone has a viewpoint and no one should be thrusting their opinions so forcefully on others. The sense of entitlement some people think they have over others is getting ridiculous....why cant people just be reasonable..

Because what's reasonable to some is ridiculous to others. Though, the only time this ever seems to be an issue is where religion is concerned, and little wonder since all religions individually are not believed by most people.

Its not hard to be reasonable...just apply the rule that everyone elses opinion may not be yours, do your own thing and let others do theirs, and as long as you are acting within the law and not deliberately hurting anyone else.......sorted.

Syl wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Syl wrote:

I agree. Gays, straights, and everyone in between, blacks, whites, Jews, Muslims Christians...everyone has a viewpoint and no one should be thrusting their opinions so forcefully on others. The sense of entitlement some people think they have over others is getting ridiculous....why cant people just be reasonable..

Because what's reasonable to some is ridiculous to others. Though, the only time this ever seems to be an issue is where religion is concerned, and little wonder since all religions individually are not believed by most people.

Its not hard to be reasonable...just apply the rule that everyone elses opinion may not be yours, do your own thing and let others do theirs, and as long as you are acting within the law and not deliberately hurting anyone else.......sorted.

And this includes being happy with ritual slaughter, circumcision, the burkha and special exemptions in the provision of goods and services, does it?

Eilzel wrote:

Syl wrote:

Its not hard to be reasonable...just apply the rule that everyone elses opinion may not be yours, do your own thing and let others do theirs, and as long as you are acting within the law and not deliberately hurting anyone else.......sorted.

And this includes being happy with ritual slaughter, circumcision, the burkha and special exemptions in the provision of goods and services, does it?

I was talking more of how we should live our own personal lives day to day Eilzel.

Most of us are not in a position to change laws...we can speak out publicly and make our opinions known....but thats about it really.

Syl wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Syl wrote:

Its not hard to be reasonable...just apply the rule that everyone elses opinion may not be yours, do your own thing and let others do theirs, and as long as you are acting within the law and not deliberately hurting anyone else.......sorted.

And this includes being happy with ritual slaughter, circumcision, the burkha and special exemptions in the provision of goods and services, does it?

I was talking more of how we should live our own personal lives day to day Eilzel.

Most of us are not in a position to change laws...we can speak out publicly and make our opinions known....but thats about it really.

Fair enough.

Eilzel wrote:

Syl wrote:

I agree. Gays, straights, and everyone in between, blacks, whites, Jews, Muslims Christians...everyone has a viewpoint and no one should be thrusting their opinions so forcefully on others. The sense of entitlement some people think they have over others is getting ridiculous....why cant people just be reasonable..

Because what's reasonable to some is ridiculous to others. Though, the only time this ever seems to be an issue is where religion is concerned, and little wonder since all religions individually are not believed by most people.

The ruling is that people should not be forced into promoting political messages that they do not wish to be involved in.


Although I would have refused to make the cake just because it was misrepresenting Bert & Ernie as homosexuals and I would be offended on their behalf...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Because what's reasonable to some is ridiculous to others. Though, the only time this ever seems to be an issue is where religion is concerned, and little wonder since all religions individually are not believed by most people.

The ruling is that people should not be forced into promoting political messages that they do not wish to be involved in.


Although I would have refused to make the cake just because it was misrepresenting Bert & Ernie as homosexuals and I would be offended on their behalf...!

How is it misrepresenting them?

Do you know these puppets personally?

If not, then you have no idea, if they are gay.

You have simple made a view, without foundation, have you not?

Hence, they maybe more offended, someone of your bigotry, thinks that you respresent them.

Have you spoken to their creator to find out?

I know them... they are just friends... and they voted Trump too...!

Tommy Monk wrote:I know them... they are just friends... and they voted Trump too...!

'Sesame Street' writer reveals Bert and Ernie are a gay couple

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/bert-and-ernie-come-out-gay-couple-sesame-street-mark-saltzman-a8543766.html

Opps

Well, glad we cleared up one thing up Tommy. That you have at least some gay friends.

And their puppets