Christian bakery guilty of discrimination over gay marriage cake refusal

First topic message reminder :

A Christian-owned bakery that refused to make a cake carrying a pro-gay marriage slogan has been found guilty of discrimination after a landmark legal action.
The Northern Ireland Equality Commission brought the case against Ashers Baking Company on behalf of Gareth Lee, the gay rights activist whose order was declined.
Giving her ruling at Belfast County Court on Tuesday, district judge Isobel Brownlie said: "The defendants have unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff on grounds of sexual discrimination.  "This is direct discrimination for which there can be no justification."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11614694/Christian-bakery-guilty-of-discrimination-over-gay-marriage-cake-refusal.html


The important part:

Giving evidence, Mr Lee claimed he was left feeling like a lesser person when his order, which was paid in full, was turned down two days after being initially accepted.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:People engineer these cases.  Obviously this case was set up by a gay rights activist (according to the article).  We have a movement in the US where they are creating a confrontation (called an 'antinomy') in the laws of discrimination, on the one hand, and religion, on the other.  We have a constitution, containing both a First Amendment guaranteeing religious freedom, and equal protection of the laws (anti-discrimination).  One day the Supreme Court will have to decide this issue.

yes they do the same as the militant queers who targetted the Christian B&B, shows their sickness and when you consider gay only hotels are advertised it also showns their hypocrisy...

There were two high-profile cases in the news re B&Bs - the Bulls and Suzanne Wilkinson. I think in both cases they refused to let rooms to unmarried couples. In the case of Suzanne Wilkinson, it was less clear because the gay couple were not in a civil partnership at the time. The gay couples won in both cases though.

It's particularly difficult for people who were running businesses prior to the law being changed. Anyone setting up a business now has to think carefully about doing so if they do hold beliefs which would mean they want to refuse service to gay people.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Neither have I, but if they did, they would be breaking the law.

I agree but as it has to my knowledge never happened one can only assume Muslims are more tolerant of confectionery based products

Possibly.

Just slightly off topic for a moment - do the laws apply to internet forums? Could a black person who owned a forum ban someone for being white?

Raggamuffin wrote:Just slightly off topic for a moment - do the laws apply to internet forums? Could a black person who owned a forum ban someone for being white?

how would you know ?  i have no idea what colour you are i assume white but personal i couldn`t care less  if any one is black ,blue or  yellow green with pink dots raggs.
its who you are not what you are that is important

Back to this religion aspect issue. There is an issue like this recently aired in San Francisco. As you know, San Francisco is the liberal center in the US. One of the current causes currently making the rounds on the liberal agenda is anti-genital mutilation.

San Francisco recently passed a law that prohibits genital mutilation…male or female, it makes no difference. Now, a lot of males have been circumcised in the US (+/-90%), however, a liberal awakening movement in the last quarter century has reduced this to under, say, 40%. The San Francisco ordinance said, no more! Circumcision inside the city limits is prohibited.

But this aroused the Jewish community, which claimed that it was a violation of religious rights because male circumcision is a Jewish ritual. They filed suit. Unfortunately, under Jewish law it’s not a personal question. It is done to 3-day old babies who have no say in the matter.

So the question becomes: Does one have a religious right to mutilate the genitals of another human being who does not give consent?

Now, that’s an antinomy!

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
yes they do the same as the militant queers who targetted the Christian B&B, shows their sickness and when you consider gay only hotels are advertised it also showns their hypocrisy...

I didn't mean it as a moral clarion call.  It's a part of the political process to engineer cases to air political causes.  It is legitimate.

In the US, the RW is doing it all the time to attack the law permitting abortion.  See, Roe v. Wade.

its militant queers pushing their queer agenda on normal people...

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Just slightly off topic for a moment - do the laws apply to internet forums? Could a black person who owned a forum ban someone for being white?

how would you know ?  i have no idea what colour you are i assume white but personal i couldn`t care less  if any one is black ,blue or  yellow green with pink dots raggs its who you are not what you are that is important

I was thinking of a forum I know. A lot of black people there tried to get the few white people banned. They could tell who was white by their posts apparently. The owner didn't do it though - she said that white people were welcome.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Just slightly off topic for a moment - do the laws apply to internet forums? Could a black person who owned a forum ban someone for being white?

how would you know ?  i have no idea what colour you are i assume white but personal i couldn`t care less  if any one is black ,blue or  yellow green with pink dots raggs.
its who you are not what you are that is important

Well, you could publish the fact that you are black. They could declare that they would not extend the service, and that would be a discrimination claim. But, doesn't Forumotion anticipate that in their rules?

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I didn't mean it as a moral clarion call.  It's a part of the political process to engineer cases to air political causes.  It is legitimate.

In the US, the RW is doing it all the time to attack the law permitting abortion.  See, Roe v. Wade.

its militant queers pushing their queer agenda on normal people...

I don't think that is true. You see it just as much on the right.

Original Quill wrote:Back to this religion aspect issue.  There is an issue like this recently aired in San Francisco.  As you know, San Francisco is the liberal center in the US.  One of the current causes currently making the rounds on the liberal agenda is anti-genital mutilation.

San Francisco recently passed a law that prohibits genital mutilation…male or female, it makes no difference.  Now, a lot of males have been circumcised in the US (+/-90%), however, a liberal awakening movement in the last quarter century has reduced this to under, say, 40%.  The San Francisco ordinance said, no more!  Circumcision inside the city limits is prohibited.

But this aroused the Jewish community, which claimed that it was a violation of religious rights because male circumcision is a Jewish ritual.  They filed suit.  Unfortunately, under Jewish law it’s not a personal question.  It is done to 3-day old babies who have no say in the matter.  

So the question becomes: Does one have a religious right to mutilate the genitals of another human being who does not give consent?

Now, that’s an antinomy!

Ooooh, that's a good one! I would say the Jewish objectors will lose.

Any way time for me to go to bed night folks

korban dallas wrote:Any way time for me to go to bed night folks

nite!!! what time is it there??

Night Korban!

korban dallas wrote:Any way time for me to go to bed night folks

G'nite KD. It's still morning for us here. Have a good one.

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:Any way time for me to go to bed night folks

G'nite KD.  It's still morning for us here.  Have a good one.

It's only 6.02pm here.

We are exactly 8-hours behind y'all in London.  It's 10:02 am here.

Eilzel wrote:I'd say most heterosexuals support same-sex marriage

And of course they were ridiculous to refuse, nowhere does it say you cannot bake a fucking cake with inoffensive words on it- idiots.

just to be contentious Eil

neither does it say anywhere that you are compelled to either

darknessss wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I'd say most heterosexuals support same-sex marriage

And of course they were ridiculous to refuse, nowhere does it say you cannot bake a fucking cake with inoffensive words on it- idiots.

just to be contentious Eil

neither does it say anywhere that you are compelled  to either

Yeah but lets be realistic here, its a cake.
There is no religious obligation that says a Christian cannot do business with a homosexual or make them a cake

personally I think the idiot bakers involved are just dumb asses anyhow

If I was in their shoes and held the same bizzare ideas

I'd just be.......well , too busy ...try up the road......

darknessss wrote:personally I think the idiot bakers involved are just dumb asses anyhow

If I was in their shoes and held the same bizzare ideas

I'd just be.......well , too busy ...try up the road......

You would think so.
Clearly though they did take the order, so they really only have themselves to blame.

darknessss wrote:personally I think the idiot bakers involved are just dumb asses anyhow

If I was in their shoes and held the same bizzare ideas

I'd just be.......well , too busy ...try up the road......

I agree but Christians tend to be too honest..

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

darknessss wrote:

just to be contentious Eil

neither does it say anywhere that you are compelled  to either

Yeah but lets be realistic here, its a cake.
There is no religious obligation that says a Christian cannot do business with a homosexual or make them a cake

agreed the wole thing is daft but.......

if something goes against a persons "personal" beliefs at what point should the law intervene?
can you be forced, by power of law and penalty to do something that is agaisnt your personal standards?
unless real and actual harm or loss is caused I dont know...I wonder....

and I'm sorry...but in this as in many things "hurt feelings" dont count as actual and real harm or loss...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

darknessss wrote:personally I think the idiot bakers involved are just dumb asses anyhow

If I was in their shoes and held the same bizzare ideas

I'd just be.......well , too busy ...try up the road......

I agree but Christians tend to be too honest..

read ostentatiously obnoxious

darknessss wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
I agree but Christians tend to be too honest..

read ostentatiously obnoxious

hey if you can't read that's your problem...

darknessss wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Yeah but lets be realistic here, its a cake.
There is no religious obligation that says a Christian cannot do business with a homosexual or make them a cake

agreed the wole thing is daft but.......

if something goes against a persons "personal" beliefs at what point should the law intervene?
can you be forced, by power of law and penalty to do something that is agaisnt your personal standards?
unless real and actual harm or loss is caused I dont know...I wonder....

and I'm sorry...but in this as in many things "hurt feelings" dont count as actual and real harm or loss...

That is going to be the grey area and nobody should be forced to do something.
However, if you sign a contract of employment with an employer, then you would have to ask to be exempt from doing so, which would be reasonable and also the employer should try to accommodate, though this will not always be possible. Equality is the main key to strive for and this can be worked out in the majority of cases, where it will be a problem is for example a very small business, with a couple of employees

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

darknessss wrote:

read ostentatiously obnoxious

hey if you can't read that's your problem...

not to mention primitive

same as the B&B they should have said sorry fully booke up .

cake business, sorry too many orders right now .

Vicar of Dibley wrote:same as the B&B they should have said sorry fully booke up .

cake business, sorry too many orders right now .

That is different.
There is no religious obligation, and we are talking about religious obligations here Dibs
They should have said they were full, but they had prebooked if I am not mistaken, so how would they accommodate for that

Vicar of Dibley wrote:same as the B&B they should have said sorry fully booke up .

cake business, sorry too many orders right now .

This is what will start happening, and then there will court cases with people trying to prove that they were lying and that it was discrimination.

exactly....even I am sometimes "too busy" to take orders at times

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:same as the B&B they should have said sorry fully booke up .

cake business, sorry too many orders right now .

That is different.
There is no religious obligation, and we are talking about religious obligations here Dibs
They should have said they were full, but they had prebooked if I am not mistaken, so how would they accommodate for that

easy just say double booked didn't realize or the B&B staff have come down with a D&V virus

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


That is different.
There is no religious obligation, and we are talking about religious obligations here Dibs
They should have said they were full, but they had prebooked if I am not mistaken, so how would they accommodate for that

easy just say double booked didn't realize or the B&B staff have come down with a D&V virus

I suppose so, but thing about it again. The B&B owners again only have themselves to blame then don;t they for what followed?

they weren't prepared for the deceipt i agree

Vicar of Dibley wrote:they weren't prepared for the deceipt i agree

No they made their own bed and ended up lying in it big time.
As they say, you reap what you sow!

Vicar of Dibley wrote:they weren't prepared for the deceipt i agree

no they took the queer and face value I guess...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:same as the B&B they should have said sorry fully booke up .

cake business, sorry too many orders right now .

This is what will start happening, and then there will court cases with people trying to prove that they were lying and that it was discrimination.

so it has forced poeple to lie to queers rather than risk upsetting them...

hmmm...wonder if they are a limited company...


I mean they were wrong in what they did and deserve what they get but

but , walking in their shoes for one min, I know what I would do now....

I would asset strip the company (which can be done quite legaly, pay for the court case from the proceeds then declare the company bankrupt putting the 80 employees out of work....and in the redundancy notices make it quite plain who I blamed for the collapse

nasty? vindictive? doubtless

but if I was taking a hit I'd pull the whole shebang down with me.....


a sort of supreme "teddy out the pram " moment......

The question that really needs to be asked here, is did they deny to make any naughty novelty cakes?
Of which people certainly ask to be made. I would be interested to know if they did and how if they did, they really would not have a leg to stand on based on religious values

You could very easily argue that these Christians had a religious obligation to do business with anyone they thought might not share their Christian values.

Luke 5:

Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

the fact same sex marriages are illegal in ireland should have had bearing on the case, as technically the bakers were being asked to promote something illegal...

Ben_Reilly wrote:You could very easily argue that these Christians had a religious obligation to do business with anyone they thought might not share their Christian values.

Luke 5:

Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Brilliant

if someone asked a halal baker to make a cake with " to my 8 year old wife love mohammed" do you think it would get done??

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:if someone asked a halal baker to make a cake with " to my 8 year old wife love mohammed" do you think it would get done??

Why not try and let us know how you get on.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:if someone asked a halal baker to make a cake with " to my 8 year old wife love mohammed" do you think it would get done??

Why not try and let us know how you get on.

that's a great idea, i'm sure they won't refuse but if they do i will be very upset and tell all my fwiends and go to court cos o is all upset...

While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.

Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.

Vicar of Dibley wrote:While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.

Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.

It's fine to believe it we just can't tell them that, in other words you can be a Christian but you cannot live a Christian life...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


Why not try and let us know how you get on.

that's a great idea, i'm sure they won't refuse but if they do i will be very upset and tell all my fwiends and go to court cos o is all upset...

I think you will end up being questioned by the Police, to finding out who is illegally married to an 8 year old.
.

May want to think that one through first

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.

Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.

It's fine to believe it we just can't tell them that, in other words you can be a Christian but you cannot live a Christian life...

that's well put xx

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
that's a great idea, i'm sure they won't refuse but if they do i will be very upset and tell all my fwiends and go to court cos o is all upset...

I think you will end up being questioned by the Police, to finding out who is illegally married to an 8 year old.
.

May want to think that one through first

i'll tell them i am a Muslim and according to the ayatollah khomeini's book i can play with babies and allah doesn't mind, so it is my religious right...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


I think you will end up being questioned by the Police, to finding out who is illegally married to an 8 year old.
.

May want to think that one through first

i'll tell them i am a Muslim and according to the ayatollah khomeini's book i can play with babies and allah doesn't mind, so it is my religious right...

So now the ayatollah khomeini's supersedes the Quran?
I doubt they will believe that and that it is illegal to marry a child, you would end up no doubt being taken for  evaluation for sanity