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.

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.

That is not the point eddie. If they had refused the order in the first place on the same grounds, that would still have been discrimination.

Well,rags if he really didn't want to bake it he should've been clever enough to lie and say they were booked up solid and the cake wouldn't be made in time.

The bloke is a knob in any case lol

eddie wrote:Look the guy had the right to refuse no matter what the cake said
What he doesn't have the right to do is agree then go back on his verbal/written/monetary contract.

He's a knob anyway, but that's beside the point.

Why?
So would you agree with someone not serving a black person, are you claiming they have a right to do so because they are black then?

eddie wrote:Well,rags if he really didn't want to bake it he should've been clever enough to lie and say they were booked up solid and the cake wouldn't be made in time.

The bloke is a knob in any case lol

Yes, but he didn't.

I think that an employee took the initial order, and the owners only objected when they realised - hence the appearance of a change of mind.

Belatucadros wrote:

eddie wrote:Look the guy had the right to refuse no matter what the cake said
What he doesn't have the right to do is agree then go back on his verbal/written/monetary contract.

He's a knob anyway, but that's beside the point.

Why?
So would you agree with someone not serving a black person, are you claiming they have a right to do so because they are black then?

They didn't refuse to serve the guy because he was gay though, they simply refused to put what he wanted on a cake.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Why?
So would you agree with someone not serving a black person, are you claiming they have a right to do so because they are black then?

They didn't refuse to serve the guy because he was gay though, they simply refused to put what he wanted on a cake.

Yes we understand that, but the point made by Eddie was that people should be able to refuse making a cake for someone, what if the reason was because they were black? That clearly would not be okay
I have already said where religious obligations are involved there will be a very grey area here, but one that can be compromised if other workers are there. We know this had 80 employees, which I am sure one would have had no objections to make

Well, these people aren't true Christians anyway, just bigots.

I understand the Bible doesn't approve of homosexuality, but how do I treat my gay and lesbian friends? What do I tell them? How do I explain to non–Christians that I believe this is wrong without being a jerk?

Christians have difficult decisions to make in friendships because we are called to do two things: 1) love people and 2) stand for what the Bible says. What do we do about people who don't live in the way God wants us to?

In a way, it's simple: Show them the same love and respect that Christ would show them. Jesus is down on sin, but not down on sinners. All people have sin in their lives, but that doesn't mean they have less worth to God. So no matter what sin people are involved in, they're still worth God's love. I would treat your gay and lesbian friends the same way you would treat heterosexual friends who are sexually active. You can show love to someone without approving of what they do.

My friend Bill is a practicing gay man. Shortly after Bill confided in me about his lifestyle, I invited him to lunch. Even though I disagreed with his lifestyle choice, I wanted to communicate that we could still hang out together. When Bill asked me about my beliefs on homosexuality, I shared that I believe the Bible is God's Word and has 17 references to sexual sin. I made sure to point out to Bill that just three of these references are about homosexuality. That doesn't mean God isn't concerned about homosexuality, but just that homosexuality isn't worse than other sexual sin. It's all sin.

What was fascinating was that Bill asked me to find those references (Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11) so he could look them up. After he read them, he wanted to talk more about it. Bill hasn't changed his lifestyle, but he knows that I value our friendship. He knows where I stand, but he is willing to have these conversations because he knows I care about him.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/iyf/advice/goodadvice/how-do-i-treat-gay-friends.html

Christians are supposed to be loving to people they disagree with and even to their enemies:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’[f] 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

Love Your Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor[g] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,[h] 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren[i] only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors[j] do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

(From Matthew 5)

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They didn't refuse to serve the guy because he was gay though, they simply refused to put what he wanted on a cake.

Yes we understand that, but the point made by Eddie was that people should be able to refuse making a cake for someone, what if the reason was because they were black? That clearly would not be okay
I have already said where religious obligations are involved there will be a very grey area here, but one that can be compromised if other workers are there. We know this had 80 employees, which I am sure one would have had no objections to make

OK, yes, she did say that.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well, these people aren't true Christians anyway, just bigots.

I understand the Bible doesn't approve of homosexuality, but how do I treat my gay and lesbian friends? What do I tell them? How do I explain to non–Christians that I believe this is wrong without being a jerk?

Christians have difficult decisions to make in friendships because we are called to do two things: 1) love people and 2) stand for what the Bible says. What do we do about people who don't live in the way God wants us to?

In a way, it's simple: Show them the same love and respect that Christ would show them. Jesus is down on sin, but not down on sinners. All people have sin in their lives, but that doesn't mean they have less worth to God. So no matter what sin people are involved in, they're still worth God's love. I would treat your gay and lesbian friends the same way you would treat heterosexual friends who are sexually active. You can show love to someone without approving of what they do.

My friend Bill is a practicing gay man. Shortly after Bill confided in me about his lifestyle, I invited him to lunch. Even though I disagreed with his lifestyle choice, I wanted to communicate that we could still hang out together. When Bill asked me about my beliefs on homosexuality, I shared that I believe the Bible is God's Word and has 17 references to sexual sin. I made sure to point out to Bill that just three of these references are about homosexuality. That doesn't mean God isn't concerned about homosexuality, but just that homosexuality isn't worse than other sexual sin. It's all sin.

What was fascinating was that Bill asked me to find those references (Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11) so he could look them up. After he read them, he wanted to talk more about it. Bill hasn't changed his lifestyle, but he knows that I value our friendship. He knows where I stand, but he is willing to have these conversations because he knows I care about him.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/iyf/advice/goodadvice/how-do-i-treat-gay-friends.html

Christians are supposed to be loving to people they disagree with and even to their enemies:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’[f] 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

Love Your Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor[g] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,[h] 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren[i] only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors[j] do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

(From Matthew 5)

I don't think it's fair to say they're not true Christians. Some people say that if someone is fine with gay marriage, then they can't be a true Christian.

Neither view is right.

eddie wrote:Look the guy had the right to refuse no matter what the cake said
What he doesn't have the right to do is agree then go back on his verbal/written/monetary contract.

He's a knob anyway, but that's beside the point.

He does have the right to go back on an agreement, but he doesn't have the right to refuse someone because they're gay - that's against the law.

Belatucadros wrote:

eddie wrote:Look the guy had the right to refuse no matter what the cake said
What he doesn't have the right to do is agree then go back on his verbal/written/monetary contract.

He's a knob anyway, but that's beside the point.

Why?
So would you agree with someone not serving a black person, are you claiming they have a right to do so because they are black then?

No, I don't agree, I think he's a knob!
But he does have the right to refuse someone of he wants to. People do,it all,the time, difference is they're clever enough to lie about it and use an excuse!

Are we taking about the court case or the man's morals here?
He doesn't like gays. So what. That's his stupidity and ignorance. He has to live with it.

eddie wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Why?
So would you agree with someone not serving a black person, are you claiming they have a right to do so because they are black then?

No, I don't agree, I think he's a knob!
But he does have the right to refuse someone of he wants to. People do,it all,the time, difference is they're clever enough to lie about it and use an excuse!

Are we taking about the court case or the man's morals here?
He doesn't like gays. So what. That's his stupidity and ignorance. He has to live with it.

There's no suggestion that he doesn't like gay people - he disapproves of gay marriage, which is not the same as disliking gay people.

eddie wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Why?
So would you agree with someone not serving a black person, are you claiming they have a right to do so because they are black then?

No, I don't agree, I think he's a knob!
But he does have the right to refuse someone of he wants to. People do,it all,the time, difference is they're clever enough to lie about it and use an excuse!

Are we taking about the court case or the man's morals here?
He doesn't like gays. So what. That's his stupidity and ignorance. He has to live with it.

Just because some people do refuse Eddie, does not mean they have a "right" to do so.
If a Muslim refused to serve an EDL member for example, then that would be wrong also, of which actually happened with Tommy Robinson remember, which at the time I also said was wrong

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Why?
So would you agree with someone not serving a black person, are you claiming they have a right to do so because they are black then?

No, I don't agree, I think he's a knob!
But he does have the right to refuse someone of he wants to. People do,it all,the time, difference is they're clever enough to lie about it and use an excuse!

Are we taking about the court case or the man's morals here?
He doesn't like gays. So what. That's his stupidity and ignorance. He has to live with it.

There's no suggestion that he doesn't like gay people - he disapproves of gay marriage, which is not the same as disliking gay people.

Yes I see that now lol - but my point still stands

Apologies rags I'm tired from clearing crap ready to move house x

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There's no suggestion that he doesn't like gay people - he disapproves of gay marriage, which is not the same as disliking gay people.

Yes I see that now lol  - but my point still stands

Apologies rags I'm tired from clearing crap ready to move house x

No problem eddie! I don't think this issue is that clear cut, which is why it's a good debate with different opinions.

Belatucadros wrote:

eddie wrote:

No, I don't agree, I think he's a knob!
But he does have the right to refuse someone of he wants to. People do,it all,the time, difference is they're clever enough to lie about it and use an excuse!

Are we taking about the court case or the man's morals here?
He doesn't like gays. So what. That's his stupidity and ignorance. He has to live with it.

Just because some people do refuse Eddie, does not mean they have a "right" to do so.
If a Muslim refused to serve an EDL member for example, then that would be wrong also, of which actually happened with Tommy Robinson remember, which at the time I also said was wrong

Would that be against the law though?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Just because some people do refuse Eddie, does not mean they have a "right" to do so.
If a Muslim refused to serve an EDL member for example, then that would be wrong also, of which actually happened with Tommy Robinson remember, which at the time I also said was wrong

Would that be against the law though?

Not sure, but they would have a good case for discrimination.
In this case he got a free meal and an apology I think

Belatucadros wrote:

eddie wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Why?
So would you agree with someone not serving a black person, are you claiming they have a right to do so because they are black then?

No, I don't agree, I think he's a knob!
But he does have the right to refuse someone of he wants to. People do,it all,the time, difference is they're clever enough to lie about it and use an excuse!

Are we taking about the court case or the man's morals here?
He doesn't like gays. So what. That's his stupidity and ignorance. He has to live with it.

Just because some people do refuse Eddie, does not mean they have a "right" to do so.
If a Muslim refused to serve an EDL member for example, then that would be wrong also, of which actually happened with Tommy Robinson remember, which at the time I also said was wrong

I agree with you in principle didge
I went into a Jewish bakery with a white Muslim friend of mine once, to buy their lovely biscuits.
The woman walked out of the shop into the back room and didn't come out again - she literary hid!!' I shouted out to her that she was ignorant (it was me who had asked for the biscuits but my friend was stood behind me)
I was fuming!
My friend, being a peaceful woman, said she was used to it and told me to calm down.

I was angry and though the bakery owner an ignorant bitch, but I also remember thinking "oh well, it's her shop, it's her perogative"

I guess that's what I'm trying to convey here, in a very tired manner!

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Would that be against the law though?

Not sure, but they would have a good case for discrimination.
In this case he got a free meal and an apology I think

A shop keeper can refuse to serve a customer if they don't like him - that's not against the law. It's only against the law if it's on certain grounds. I'm not sure about political beliefs though.

eddie wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Just because some people do refuse Eddie, does not mean they have a "right" to do so.
If a Muslim refused to serve an EDL member for example, then that would be wrong also, of which actually happened with Tommy Robinson remember, which at the time I also said was wrong

I agree with you in principle didge
I went into a Jewish bakery with a white Muslim friend of mine once, to buy their lovely biscuits.
The woman walked out of the shop into the back room and didn't come out again - she literary hid!!' I shouted out to her that she was ignorant (it was me who had asked for the biscuits but my friend was stood behind me)
I was fuming!
My friend, being a peaceful woman, said she was used to it and told me to calm down.

I was angry and though the bakery owner an ignorant bitch, but I also remember thinking "oh well, it's her shop, it's her perogative"

I guess that's what I'm trying to convey here, in a very tired manner!

I totally get where you are coming from Eddie, and sadly there is some extremely rude bigoted people out there. So very much see your point. Just think the move will soon be over, something you must be very looking forward to, in fact I bet is very exciting for you

Yes exciting but so bloody much to do and phone calls to make!! This time next week will be my first night in my new home!
It's quite daunting.

(Sorry peeps, thread diverted lol)

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well, these people aren't true Christians anyway, just bigots.

I understand the Bible doesn't approve of homosexuality, but how do I treat my gay and lesbian friends? What do I tell them? How do I explain to non–Christians that I believe this is wrong without being a jerk?

Christians have difficult decisions to make in friendships because we are called to do two things: 1) love people and 2) stand for what the Bible says. What do we do about people who don't live in the way God wants us to?

In a way, it's simple: Show them the same love and respect that Christ would show them. Jesus is down on sin, but not down on sinners. All people have sin in their lives, but that doesn't mean they have less worth to God. So no matter what sin people are involved in, they're still worth God's love. I would treat your gay and lesbian friends the same way you would treat heterosexual friends who are sexually active. You can show love to someone without approving of what they do.

My friend Bill is a practicing gay man. Shortly after Bill confided in me about his lifestyle, I invited him to lunch. Even though I disagreed with his lifestyle choice, I wanted to communicate that we could still hang out together. When Bill asked me about my beliefs on homosexuality, I shared that I believe the Bible is God's Word and has 17 references to sexual sin. I made sure to point out to Bill that just three of these references are about homosexuality. That doesn't mean God isn't concerned about homosexuality, but just that homosexuality isn't worse than other sexual sin. It's all sin.

What was fascinating was that Bill asked me to find those references (Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11) so he could look them up. After he read them, he wanted to talk more about it. Bill hasn't changed his lifestyle, but he knows that I value our friendship. He knows where I stand, but he is willing to have these conversations because he knows I care about him.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/iyf/advice/goodadvice/how-do-i-treat-gay-friends.html

Christians are supposed to be loving to people they disagree with and even to their enemies:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’[f] 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

Love Your Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor[g] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,[h] 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren[i] only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors[j] do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

(From Matthew 5)

I don't think it's fair to say they're not true Christians. Some people say that if someone is fine with gay marriage, then they can't be a true Christian.

Neither view is right.

There is nothing I can find in the Bible where Jesus says it's OK to be unkind to people.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it's fair to say they're not true Christians. Some people say that if someone is fine with gay marriage, then they can't be a true Christian.

Neither view is right.

There is nothing I can find in the Bible where Jesus says it's OK to be unkind to people.

They weren't unkind, they were perfectly polite.

All this is a red herring anyway - it's not about what all Christians should believe, or how they should behave.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

There is nothing I can find in the Bible where Jesus says it's OK to be unkind to people.

They weren't unkind, they were perfectly polite.

All this is a red herring anyway - it's not about what all Christians should believe, or how they should behave.

Hmmmm is it a kind or unkind act to refuse someone to something you can do for them?

If people are going to go down the road of judging what is a proper Christian, this thread will go tits up. It's about the equality laws.

Okay this did make me chuckle:




Here are the other ten areas where I hope we can all band together and start standing up for our right to be biblically consistent in who we discriminate against– let us be bold! Effective immediately, we need to smile and say “no cake for you!” to the following ten people:

10. Career minded brides-to-be.

Let’s make sure we start asking brides what they intend to do after the wedding. The bible is clear- women should be “keepers of the home.” If the bride is career minded or dislikes housework, just tell her “no cake for you!” because you wouldn’t want to endorse a lifestyle that goes against God’s created order.

9. When they’re gluttons or over-eating will take place at the wedding.

Over-eating is a very serious sin, my dear brothers and sisters. Since it is by definition greed, and the Bible calls greed idol worship, we need to make sure that we are not endorsing idol worship. If you have any second thought about this couple over-eating (worshiping idols) you need to refrain from participating in their sin- just say, “no cake for you!”

8. Weddings where there will be drunkenness.

As the brave Christian patriots have argued in the gay wedding cake situations, you need to remember that selling a person a cake is a direct endorsement of their wedding. You’ll want to make sure no one invited to the wedding will be getting drunk (over .08 BAC in most states), because drunk people go to hell, and you don’t want to endorse a behavior that automatically gets people sent to hell.

7. Individuals getting remarried who do not have biblical justification for a prior divorce.

This one is easy but serious- one can only get divorced for two reasons: (a) the other spouse committed adultery, or (b) one was married to an unbeliever who abandoned the believing spouse. Those are the only biblical justifications for divorce, and anything other than those two scenarios means that remarriage will be adultery and fornication. You don’t want to endorse that do you?

6. Weddings where there will be unwholesome music and provocative dancing.

The Bible is clear that no unwholesome talk should come out of our mouths, but that’s pretty much what dance music is these days. To make matters worse, folks will often “bump and grind” or “twerk” on the dance floor to this unwholesome music. Remember, if you sell them a cake, you are directly endorsing all of the unwholesome music and sexually provocative behavior that will happen in that ballroom. Don’t take the chance folks– just say, “no cake for you!”

5. Young military couples.

I know it’s fun to use those military cake toppers, but that’s a n0-no folks. The Bible clearly states in Deuteronomy 24 that a man cannot serve in the military during his first year of marriage. If you sell a cake to that young military couple, you will be endorsing a lifestyle that is directly rebelling against God’s inerrant word. Don’t do it! No more military wedding cakes.

4. Weddings where one spouse-to-be works at a bank.

The Bible in Ezekiel makes it clear that charging interest on a loan is an abomination and that such a person should be put to death. If your customer works at a bank, they are an abomination to the Lord (for the Lord changes not) and you don’t want to endorse an abomination, do you? Refusing to endorse abomination is what this movement is about– so don’t forget those bankers!

3. Mixed faith weddings.

Remember folks, the Bible tells us we must not be “unequally yoked.” That means you need to find out the faith background of the couple you’re selling a cake to. If one is a Christian and one is not (or say, if one is a real Christian but the other is a fake Christian like an Episcopal), you need to boldly say “no cake for you!” — and should probably throw in a solid “repent ye!” as well.

2. Non-Christians.

The only thing worse than an unequally yoked couple is a couple where both of them are part of a false religion, or worse, atheism. Did you know that by selling a cake to a Hindu you’re actually endorsing the worship of Shiva and all the other Hindu gods? It’s true- you are. Same with selling a wedding cake to atheists- it’s basically as if you’re saying, “yeah, Richard Dawkins is right.” We need to be BOLD for the Lord, because if we sell cakes to atheists, Hindus, or God forbid, a Muslim, we are endorsing that entire belief system.

1. Weddings where the bride will wear an expensive wedding dress.

Finally, before you sell someone a cake, you need to look at the receipt for the wedding dress and make sure that it wasn’t expensive. Why? Well, Paul clearly states that women should not be adorning themselves with expensive apparel, and an expensive wedding dress would count. Just think about what you’re saying if you sell her a wedding cake: you’re saying that Jesus was a liar, because Jesus inspired Paul and Paul said that women shouldn’t have expensive clothes. You don’t want to call Jesus a liar do you? Far better it is to say, “no cake for you!”

…

It is my hope and prayer that we will have the courage to apply the bible consistently to our businesses instead of just the selective, hypocritical bigotry that we’re so eloquently expressing currently. Refusing to sell cakes to gay people isn’t enough folks- we need to have the courage to radically expand our discrimination as we apply the Bible to everyone but ourselves. Remember, Revelation says that cowards are all going to hell, so if you don’t stand up and start refusing service to all the people I listed, just know that you might burn for eternity over it.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/10-situations-where-christian-bakers-should-refuse-to-bake-wedding-cakes/

Hmmm that was pretty funny lol

I have often said, and I want to make it clear this isn't just about Christians, but there is an awful lot of hypocrisy within religion....

eddie wrote:Hmmm that was pretty funny lol

I have often said, and I want to make it clear this isn't just about Christians, but there is an awful lot of hypocrisy within religion....

Agreed.

I was on a board of governors at my son's school a few years ago and the local vicar was too.
She really was against giving extra attention to EAL pupils (Engish as an additional language)
At heart, she was a tad racist I always thought.

Raggamuffin wrote:If people are going to go down the road of judging what is a proper Christian, this thread will go tits up. It's about the equality laws.

I think, though, that an action that is going to be defended as a religious freedom needs to be examined for whether it actually adheres to the religion being claimed.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If people are going to go down the road of judging what is a proper Christian, this thread will go tits up. It's about the equality laws.

I think, though, that an action that is going to be defended as a religious freedom needs to be examined for whether it actually adheres to the religion being claimed.

You mean like whether it's obligatory for Muslim women to wear headscarves or not?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If people are going to go down the road of judging what is a proper Christian, this thread will go tits up. It's about the equality laws.

I think, though, that an action that is going to be defended as a religious freedom needs to be examined for whether it actually adheres to the religion being claimed.

You mean like whether it's obligatory for Muslim women to wear headscarves or not?

Of course. Or if I ran across the field naked during the Super Bowl because I'm a devout Verdukian and my religion demands it, or if I'm just using that as an excuse.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If people are going to go down the road of judging what is a proper Christian, this thread will go tits up. It's about the equality laws.

I think, though, that an action that is going to be defended as a religious freedom needs to be examined for whether it actually adheres to the religion being claimed.

You mean like whether it's obligatory for Muslim women to wear headscarves or not?

Of course. Or if I ran across the field naked during the Super Bowl because I'm a devout Verdukian and my religion demands it, or if I'm just using that as an excuse.

I'm a Verdukian!!! What a coincidence! Do you,practise standing on your head whilst eating baked goods too and canned goods only on every other Wednesday if there's a seven in the date?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You mean like whether it's obligatory for Muslim women to wear headscarves or not?

Of course. Or if I ran across the field naked during the Super Bowl because I'm a devout Verdukian and my religion demands it, or if I'm just using that as an excuse.

It's not obligatory for Christians to wear crosses either, but it's still considered an issue of discrimination if they're not allowed to wear one at work.

I think you have to use some common sense here Ben.

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If people are going to go down the road of judging what is a proper Christian, this thread will go tits up. It's about the equality laws.

I think, though, that an action that is going to be defended as a religious freedom needs to be examined for whether it actually adheres to the religion being claimed.

You mean like whether it's obligatory for Muslim women to wear headscarves or not?

Of course. Or if I ran across the field naked during the Super Bowl because I'm a devout Verdukian and my religion demands it, or if I'm just using that as an excuse.

I'm a Verdukian!!! What a coincidence! Do you,practise standing on your head whilst eating baked goods too and canned goods only on every other Wednesday if there's a seven in the date?

No, I'm a Seventh-Day-Fruit-Cup Reformed (Class B) Verdukian, so I think you're quite the heathen, actually

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You mean like whether it's obligatory for Muslim women to wear headscarves or not?

Of course. Or if I ran across the field naked during the Super Bowl because I'm a devout Verdukian and my religion demands it, or if I'm just using that as an excuse.

It's not obligatory for Christians to wear crosses either, but it's still considered an issue of discrimination if they're not allowed to wear one at work.

I think you have to use some common sense here Ben.

Yeah, common sense would be nice. Crosses and headscarves aren't hurting anyone unless they're being used as weapons, or to obscure the face for a photo ID. I would say refusing to bake someone's wedding cake is more harmful.

The issue is not really the religious faith of the bakery owners, the issue is the discrimination against gay people - or gay cakes.

Well you're all nuts. We don't touch fruit. Or cups.
And we certainly won't have seventh days.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not obligatory for Christians to wear crosses either, but it's still considered an issue of discrimination if they're not allowed to wear one at work.

I think you have to use some common sense here Ben.

Yeah, common sense would be nice. Crosses and headscarves aren't hurting anyone unless they're being used as weapons, or to obscure the face for a photo ID. I would say refusing to bake someone's wedding cake is more harmful.

It wasn't a wedding cake, it was a cake for a Mayor.

It's not that harmful really - the chap simply got his cake made elsewhere. The issue is his alleged "hurt feelings" isn't it?

In fact, the woman who was told she couldn't wear a cross at work suffered more harm because she was suspended.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Yeah, common sense would be nice. Crosses and headscarves aren't hurting anyone unless they're being used as weapons, or to obscure the face for a photo ID. I would say refusing to bake someone's wedding cake is more harmful.

It wasn't a wedding cake, it was a cake for a Mayor.

It's not that harmful really - the chap simply got his cake made elsewhere. The issue is his alleged "hurt feelings" isn't it?

It was a pro gay marriage slogan though on the cake.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It wasn't a wedding cake, it was a cake for a Mayor.

It's not that harmful really - the chap simply got his cake made elsewhere. The issue is his alleged "hurt feelings" isn't it?

It was a pro gay marriage slogan though on the cake.

Yes, but it wasn't a wedding cake.

In any case, Ben's argument is not logical.

Yeah, common sense would be nice. Crosses and headscarves aren't hurting anyone unless they're being used as weapons, or to obscure the face for a photo ID. I would say refusing to bake someone's wedding cake is more harmful.

What he should have done was to compare the refusal to make the cake with a refusal to let someone wear a cross or headscarf.

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.

Raggs I see the actions of the gay mafia & the court ruling going against gay people in the short & long term,simply because people of all walks of life will see this for what it is;A set up & favouritism for gays.

As a person who supports equal rights & gay marriage I find it abhorrent that gay people should be treated in a better way to the rest of society & actions by the gay guy concerned & the court ruling will simply alienate the gay community.

Like left wingers & the Labour party,will gay people never learn? Some of them seem intent on putting back their cause (Peter Tatchell for example) & many of these so called gay activists are behind the times & cause embarrassment to the majority of the gay community.

It's a pity & I feel for the decent members of the gay community.

Shady 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.

Raggs I see the actions of the gay mafia & the court ruling going against gay people in the short & long term,simply because people of all walks of life will see this for what it is;A set up & favouritism for gays.

As a person who supports equal rights & gay marriage I find it abhorrent that gay people should be treated in a better way to the rest of society & actions by the gay guy concerned & the court ruling will simply alienate the gay community.

Like left wingers & the Labour party,will gay people never learn? Some of them seem intent on putting back their cause (Peter Tatchell for example) & many of these so called gay activists are behind the times & cause embarrassment to the majority of the gay community.

It's a pity  & I feel for the decent members of the gay community.  

What a crock of shit.
The only thing I see is someone unable to move forward with the rest of society.
I see you club all homosexuals together, which proves your true feelings on the matter really it seems.

Belatucadros wrote:

Shady wrote:

Raggs I see the actions of the gay mafia & the court ruling going against gay people in the short & long term,simply because people of all walks of life will see this for what it is;A set up & favouritism for gays.

As a person who supports equal rights & gay marriage I find it abhorrent that gay people should be treated in a better way to the rest of society & actions by the gay guy concerned & the court ruling will simply alienate the gay community.

Like left wingers & the Labour party,will gay people never learn? Some of them seem intent on putting back their cause (Peter Tatchell for example) & many of these so called gay activists are behind the times & cause embarrassment to the majority of the gay community.

It's a pity  & I feel for the decent members of the gay community.  

What a crock of shit.
The only thing I see is someone unable to move forward with the rest of society.
I see you club all homosexuals together, which proves your true feelings on the matter really it seems.

What have you changed your name again for?

Nems wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

What a crock of shit.
The only thing I see is someone unable to move forward with the rest of society.
I see you club all homosexuals together, which proves your true feelings on the matter really it seems.

What have you changed your name again for?

Because I like changing my name.
Why are you so nosey?

Nems wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

What a crock of shit.
The only thing I see is someone unable to move forward with the rest of society.
I see you club all homosexuals together, which proves your true feelings on the matter really it seems.

What have you changed your name again for?

Good morning Nems.

Who has changed their name?

It's a pity that the gay mafia are seeking to divide society where non gay mafia members see themselves as normal & accepted members of society & simply get on with life.

And I often wonder why paedophiles,ISIS,loonie left wingers & the gay mafia believe that they have the monopoly on life & other peoples lives.It's got to be their way or no way.

I believe that the aforementioned group of people are cursed with a lack of empathy for the feelings of their fellow humans & they simply don't care how other people feel.As long as they get their way.

The paedophile doesn't care that the child does not want sex with him/her.

ISIS do not care who or what you are & you are there to be killed & so on........

These creatures are a stain on society.