Christian bakery guilty of discrimination over gay marriage cake refusal

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
perhaps a better question is why dont those gay rights activists try the same thing at an islamic bakery. why do they only want christian ones prosecuted?

why would a picture of mohammed be political?

You think it was deliberate?

It does seem quite a coincidence that a gay activist asked a devout Christian bakery to make the cake.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Shady wrote:So the gay mafia have struck again & their appalling bigotry knows no bounds.

Muslim printers could be forced to produce cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed if the case against a Christian bakery which refused to make a Sesame Street gay marriage cake is upheld, a prominent human rights barrister has claimed.

So does the court ruling mean that jewish bakeries will have to decorate cakes with swastikas if requested?

And what about the other mafia....the Muslim mafia? Will Muslim printers have to print images of the prophet muhamed?

Clearly the gay mafia have the upper hand over the religious mafia.I wonder how long that will last?

What's not very clear is if the discrimination occurred against the customer for being gay, or against gayness generally. If the person asking for the cake had not been gay, I don't know where the law would have stood on that - in that case, the refusal to serve the customer would not have been on the grounds that he was gay.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You think it was deliberate?

It does seem quite a coincidence that a gay activist asked a devout Christian bakery to make the cake.

can you offer any evidence at all that they do not have strong religious convictions.


Devout?
How do we even know if they were devout?
Did they attend mass daily, as that is devout?
Did the shop have a sign saying "Christian Bakery"?
There really is plenty of groundless accusations going on here, all centering on as if to excuse people discriminating. I find that really ridiculous.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



Devout?
How do we even know if they were devout?
Did they attend mass daily, as that is devout?
Did the shop have a sign saying "Christian Bakery"?
There really is plenty of groundless accusations going on here, all centering on as if to excuse people discriminating. I find that really ridiculous.

can you offer any evidence at all that they do not have strong religious convictions.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

To me, devout means that they take their religion very seriously, and perhaps follow the Bible to the letter. I would say that someone who believes on religious grounds that gayness is wrong is devout.

That is taking religion seriously as a Catholic, my mum still goes everyday, on her own to church and even prays for me, knowing I am athiest. Devout is in every aspect to a christian practicing that faith.
I would differ that they are devout, say if they knowingly served say a person known to them who has committed adultery, of which would certainly happen and this is the point. I bet they would be lapse or far more relaxed in their beliefs in other areas.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What's not very clear is if the discrimination occurred against the customer for being gay, or against gayness generally. If the person asking for the cake had not been gay, I don't know where the law would have stood on that - in that case, the refusal to serve the customer would not have been on the grounds that he was gay.

I thought the whole point was the baker did not agree with gay marriage due to his religious beliefs, so he could not bake the cake.  

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:



So if one was looking for bakery run by devout Christians, it would be easy to identify that particular one ...

By the way, you can be a practising Christian and still not have anything against gayness.

From their website, you could not even tell they are devout at all?
What does it say they do in their spare time?
I see nothing that points to them being devout!
That is correct there is no many Christians, my mother included who is not opposed to homosexuality

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


That is taking religion seriously as a Catholic, my mum still goes everyday, on her own to church and even prays for me, knowing I am athiest. Devout is in every aspect to a christian practicing that faith.
I would differ that they are devout, say if they knowingly served say a person known to them who has committed adultery, of which would certainly happen and this is the point. I bet they would be lapse or far more relaxed in their beliefs in other areas.

this is not about adultery or any thing else other than someone requiring them to create a cake with a message that offends their religious sensibilities.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The fact that they took their name from the Bible is a bit of a clue ...

Again that could only be advertizement to catch customers, it does not mean they would be, you are second guessing, as it can be easily explained. That is the only mention of something connected to their faith and it is more about how this tribe were great bakers, which is the selling point they are using

Belatucadros wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
can you offer any evidence at all that they do not have strong religious convictions.

Can you offer any that they were?
Again it is not a religious obligation this and to be honest your views here are quite absurd. You go off a set up, when the whole point is a Christian really has no reason to not make a cake with some words to a picture of Bert and Ernie. It shows how people are sadly wishing to remain in the past when many more people are clearly and rightly accepting of this.
Seriously what is wrong here is people arguing off it is or should be acceptable for people to discriminate. If that is your argument, then you thinking is backwards.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


From their website, you could not even tell they are devout at all?
What does it say they do in their spare time?
I see nothing that points to them being devout!
That is correct there is no many Christians, my mother included who is not opposed to homosexuality

do they need to shout their devotion from the rooftops for it to be true?

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think there are plenty of people who hate homosexuals and who would whether their religion told them to or not, to be fair.

Belatucadros wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
this is not about adultery or any thing else other than someone requiring them to create a cake with a message that offends their religious sensibilities.

Adultery is a major sin in the bible, to the point people were stoned to death for this. So how would it be any different to an adulterer, which is how Catholics view those divorced by the way for example, who then also marry again, to have a cake made for them celebrating this marriage?
That would be seen in the same light making a cake where a couple to them would be committing a sin.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Can you offer any that they were?
Again it is not a religious obligation this and to be honest your views here are quite absurd. You go off a set up, when the whole point is a Christian really has no reason to not make a cake with some words to a picture of Bert and Ernie. It shows how people are sadly wishing to remain in the past when many more people are clearly and rightly accepting of this.
Seriously what is wrong here is people arguing off it is or should be acceptable for people to discriminate. If that is your argument, then you thinking is backwards.

Some Christians would think they have a good reason though. It's nothing to do with the past - the words they read in the Bible do not change, no matter how much times has passed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Adultery is a major sin in the bible, to the point people were stoned to death for this. So how would it be any different to an adulterer, which is how Catholics view those divorced by the way for example, who then also marry again, to have a cake made for them celebrating this marriage?
That would be seen in the same light making a cake where a couple to them would be committing a sin.

How would they know if a cake they were making was for a divorced person though?

Raggamuffin wrote:Also, they didn't object to making a cake for a gay person, they just objected to the message on it. Therefore, they wouldn't necessarily object to making a wedding cake for a divorced person.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How would they know if a cake they were making was for a divorced person though?

Celebrating their divorce for example.
Or they knew the person had been divorced and this cake was for their new marriage.
Again I can think of plenty of examples

Raggamuffin wrote:The recipient of the cake wasn't very happy about it going to court apparently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32053610?utm_source=Daily+Media+Digest&utm_campaign=f1c05ae709-&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_296e14724b-f1c05ae709-248610269&ct=t%28%29

Belatucadros wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
can you offer any evidence at all that they do not have strong religious convictions.

Can you offer any that they were?
Again it is not a religious obligation this and to be honest your views here are quite absurd. You go off a set up, when the whole point is a Christian really has no reason to not make a cake with some words to a picture of Bert and Ernie. It shows how people are sadly wishing to remain in the past when many more people are clearly and rightly accepting of this.
Seriously what is wrong here is people arguing off it is or should be acceptable for people to discriminate. If that is your argument, then you thinking is backwards.

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
I thought the whole point was the baker did not agree with gay marriage due to his religious beliefs, so he could not bake the cake.  

That's right, but what if a heterosexual friend of the gay bloke had come in and placed the order? They wouldn't have been discriminating against the customer as such.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Celebrating their divorce for example.
Or they knew the person had been divorced and this cake was for their new marriage.
Again I can think of plenty of examples

Are they Catholics anyway?

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Also, they didn't object to making a cake for a gay person, they just objected to the message on it. Therefore, they wouldn't necessarily object to making a wedding cake for a divorced person.

Same thing with a message celebrating a divorce or a divorcee who then remarried.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Can you offer any that they were?
Again it is not a religious obligation this and to be honest your views here are quite absurd. You go off a set up, when the whole point is a Christian really has no reason to not make a cake with some words to a picture of Bert and Ernie. It shows how people are sadly wishing to remain in the past when many more people are clearly and rightly accepting of this.
Seriously what is wrong here is people arguing off it is or should be acceptable for people to discriminate. If that is your argument, then you thinking is backwards.

the simple fact they say it offended their religious beliefs. you have not offered any evidence to the contrary

Belatucadros wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
this is not about adultery or any thing else other than someone requiring them to create a cake with a message that offends their religious sensibilities.

Adultery is a major sin in the bible, to the point people were stoned to death for this. So how would it be any different to an adulterer, which is how Catholics view those divorced by the way for example, who then also marry again, to have a cake made for them celebrating this marriage?
That would be seen in the same light making a cake where a couple to them would be committing a sin.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Same thing with a message celebrating a divorce or a divorcee who then remarried.

Wouldn't it depend on whether the first marriage was in church or a register office?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Adultery is a major sin in the bible, to the point people were stoned to death for this. So how would it be any different to an adulterer, which is how Catholics view those divorced by the way for example, who then also marry again, to have a cake made for them celebrating this marriage?
That would be seen in the same light making a cake where a couple to them would be committing a sin.

what if's are a pointless distraction. this case is entirely about a cake with a slogan that the bakers could not bring themselves to bake due to their religious beliefs. Just because those beliefs may be outdated, does not mean they do not strongly believe them.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Also, they didn't object to making a cake for a gay person, they just objected to the message on it. Therefore, they wouldn't necessarily object to making a wedding cake for a divorced person.

Same thing with a message celebrating a divorce or a divorcee who then remarried.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Wouldn't it depend on whether the first marriage was in church or a register office?

Nope.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Same thing with a message celebrating a divorce or a divorcee who then remarried.

how do you know they havent refused to make such a cake. Perhaps divorced people do not have such thin skins and took their business elsewhere

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Nope.

Are you sure?

Belatucadros wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
the simple fact they say it offended their religious beliefs. you have not offered any evidence to the contrary

Offended?
So based on the biblical book of leviticus, they would be then offended by anything found within that book also would they not deemed as sinful and even punishable by death?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Offended?
So based on the biblical book of leviticus, they would be then offended by anything found within that book also would they not deemed as sinful and even punishable by death?

I think perhaps you would do better popping off to ireland and asking them,. the rest of us can only go by what has been written in the papers. You seem to be almost didge like in your monomania over this issue.
they said it was against their religious beliefs. What other reason do you think they could have had?

Belatucadros wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
what if's are a pointless distraction. this case is entirely about a cake with a slogan that the bakers could not bring themselves to bake due to their religious beliefs. Just because those beliefs may be outdated, does not mean they do not strongly believe them.

No they are not because they clearly show up the views to how people who are religious will change their stance accordingly in their beliefs, to the point they will not mind on some things and on others they will be strict on. The point is to say you advocate something from the biblical book of leviticus, you would have to advocate them all. Its not a choice to have if you are a literal believer, because this is what we are really talking about here when some Christians are against homosexuality.

Belatucadros wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
how do you know they havent refused to make such a cake. Perhaps divorced people do not have such thin skins and took their business elsewhere

Do you not think they would have brought this up in their trial as further proof to how they were offended furthering their religious claim?
You still fail to see how the whole issue is based on thin ice itself regard literal christian beliefs. If they lack in others, they have little ground to use parts of the bible if they do not adhere to others.
Can you not even grasp that?

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you sure?

Use to be the case.

Belatucadros wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
I think perhaps you would do better popping off to ireland and asking them,. the rest of us can only go by what has been written in the papers. You seem to be almost didge like in your monomania over this issue.
they said it was against their religious beliefs. What other reason do you think they could have had?

I go often and flt to Belfast to then travel on as my mother lives in Donegal which is near thanks
No you are ignoring how they would have to be literal believers otherwise there reason lacks any validity

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


No they are not because they clearly show up the views to how people who are religious will change their stance accordingly in their beliefs, to the point they will not mind on some things and on others they will be strict on. The point is to say you advocate something from the biblical book of leviticus, you would have to advocate them all. Its not a choice to have if you are a literal believer, because this is what we are really talking about here when some Christians are against homosexuality.

all religious books are full of ambiguity, how do you think Muslims get away with hacking people heads off and still claiming to be a religion of peace.
That's how religion works. It allows anyone interested to take what they want from it to make themselves feel better about dying.

Belatucadros wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
I think perhaps you would do better popping off to ireland and asking them,. the rest of us can only go by what has been written in the papers. You seem to be almost didge like in your monomania over this issue.
they said it was against their religious beliefs. What other reason do you think they could have had?

I go often and flt to Belfast to then travel on as my mother lives in Donegal which is near thanks
No you are ignoring how they would have to be literal believers otherwise there reason lacks any validity

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


I go often and flt to Belfast to then travel on as my mother lives in Donegal which is near thanks
No you are ignoring how they would have to be literal believers otherwise there reason lacks any validity

then next time you are over there pop into the shop and you can get the full 9 yards for us all. Until then we can only go by what was written in the papers.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


I go often and flt to Belfast to then travel on as my mother lives in Donegal which is near thanks
No you are ignoring how they would have to be literal believers otherwise there reason lacks any validity

It doesn't matter. They objected on the grounds of their religious belief.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It doesn't matter. They objected on the grounds of their religious belief.

It can matter greatly if on other religious aspects of their faith they did not refuse a customer

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Do you not think they would have brought this up in their trial as further proof to how they were offended furthering their religious claim?
You still fail to see how the whole issue is based on thin ice itself regard literal christian beliefs. If they lack in others, they have little ground to use parts of the bible if they do not adhere to others.
Can you not even grasp that?

we already had the lewd and profane cakes brought up.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


It can matter greatly if on other religious aspects of their faith they did not refuse a customer

No it doesn't.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No it doesn't.

A Lawyer would easily play on this to show contradictions. If they showed they did not act on other parts of the bible to be offended to, they would lose all credibility in a court of law

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

A Lawyer would easily play on this to show contradictions. If they showed they did not act on other parts of the bible to be offended to, they would lose all credibility in a court of law

Some Christians wear crosses, others don't. Some disapprove of divorce, others don't. It doesn't matter what other things they disapproved of or approved of.

eddie wrote:Oaky I think you're all missing the point.
The baker took the money and two days later refused to bake the cake.

He should've refused straight away if he didn't want to make it.

He has every right not to bake it if he doesn't want to.

If I were a baker and a man walked in and asked for a cake Saying "let's kill all children"
I'd say no.
It's my perogative.

What is wrong is if I said yes, took a deposit, then two days later refuse.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Some Christians wear crosses, others don't. Some disapprove of divorce, others don't. It doesn't matter what other things they disapproved of or approved of.

Its not an obligation to wear a cross.
If you are a catholic, you cannot approve of divorce, just like my mother should not approve of homosexuality, as it conflicts with the faith. That point is important, conflicts, as once that is show, you can argue against their faith.