Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I thought this was sorted years back?" Those were lower courts, it took 4.5 years to get to the Supreme Court | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So it's the design that's offensive not the fact it's a gay couple who want the cake? . I see a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple the same as refusing to bake one for an Asian or black couple . "The bakery would have refused to make that cake for you, if you had requested it. Therefore, they cannot be said to be discriminating on sexual orientation since sexual orientation is not a factor in their decision making process. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So it's the design that's offensive not the fact it's a gay couple who want the cake? . I see a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple the same as refusing to bake one for an Asian or black couple .
The bakery would have refused to make that cake for you, if you had requested it. Therefore, they cannot be said to be discriminating on sexual orientation since sexual orientation is not a factor in their decision making process. "Im fine with baker refusing to bake a giant cock .As long as he's consistent with all people. If it's over the cake design and not based on being gay it's a non story and hardly a victory for the religious .  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So it's the design that's offensive not the fact it's a gay couple who want the cake? . I see a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple the same as refusing to bake one for an Asian or black couple .
The bakery would have refused to make that cake for you, if you had requested it. Therefore, they cannot be said to be discriminating on sexual orientation since sexual orientation is not a factor in their decision making process. "Apparently, it was refused because they said it was against Christian values ? It is said repeatedly by many Christians on fab that Christianity does not object to homosexuality . I wonder if a Christian could clarify the point as I'm confused | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So it's the design that's offensive not the fact it's a gay couple who want the cake? . I see a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple the same as refusing to bake one for an Asian or black couple .
The bakery would have refused to make that cake for you, if you had requested it. Therefore, they cannot be said to be discriminating on sexual orientation since sexual orientation is not a factor in their decision making process.
Apparently, it was refused because they said it was against Christian values ? It is said repeatedly by many Christians on fab that Christianity does not object to homosexuality . I wonder if a Christian could clarify the point as I'm confused "Ask the OP he's in the god squad . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So it's the design that's offensive not the fact it's a gay couple who want the cake? . I see a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple the same as refusing to bake one for an Asian or black couple .
The bakery would have refused to make that cake for you, if you had requested it. Therefore, they cannot be said to be discriminating on sexual orientation since sexual orientation is not a factor in their decision making process. "The sexual orientation claim was always the dodgy one. They were on stronger ground on arguing it was discrimination on the grounds of political belief which is also unlawful The SC held it could be political belief discrimination, but that had to be balanced against the bakers convention rights not to be forced to express a message with which they disagreed. Hence in this instance, it wasn't unlawful. I can see the SCs reasoning, but I'd query how far baking a cake promoting a message with which one disagrees is endorsing that opinion, given that, as a lawyer, I express messages I don't agree with all the time. There's also a bit of a floodgates point. It seems to me that this would give permission say to Muslims working in supermarkets to refuse to sell alcohol given their beliefs consumption of alcohol is sinful. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So it's the design that's offensive not the fact it's a gay couple who want the cake? . I see a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple the same as refusing to bake one for an Asian or black couple .
The bakery would have refused to make that cake for you, if you had requested it. Therefore, they cannot be said to be discriminating on sexual orientation since sexual orientation is not a factor in their decision making process.
The sexual orientation claim was always the dodgy one. They were on stronger ground on arguing it was discrimination on the grounds of political belief which is also unlawful
The SC held it could be political belief discrimination, but that had to be balanced against the bakers convention rights not to be forced to express a message with which they disagreed. Hence in this instance, it wasn't unlawful.
I can see the SCs reasoning, but I'd query how far baking a cake promoting a message with which one disagrees is endorsing that opinion, given that, as a lawyer, I express messages I don't agree with all the time.
There's also a bit of a floodgates point. It seems to me that this would give permission say to Muslims working in supermarkets to refuse to sell alcohol given their beliefs consumption of alcohol is sinful. "Which convention gives the right not to be forced to express a message with which they disagreed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is homosexualality a sin for christians and against their beliefs? "Which denomination are you asking for and why can't you get the answer from Google? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is homosexualality a sin for christians and against their beliefs?
Which denomination are you asking for and why can't you get the answer from Google? "Well if we have gay people who are Christians and even in the clergy and we have christians who refuse to accept homosexuality promoted in the form of baking who is correct .. shouldn't the church who the bakers belong to make a statement on who is on the right side of god .? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So it's the design that's offensive not the fact it's a gay couple who want the cake? . I see a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple the same as refusing to bake one for an Asian or black couple .
The bakery would have refused to make that cake for you, if you had requested it. Therefore, they cannot be said to be discriminating on sexual orientation since sexual orientation is not a factor in their decision making process.
The sexual orientation claim was always the dodgy one. They were on stronger ground on arguing it was discrimination on the grounds of political belief which is also unlawful
The SC held it could be political belief discrimination, but that had to be balanced against the bakers convention rights not to be forced to express a message with which they disagreed. Hence in this instance, it wasn't unlawful.
I can see the SCs reasoning, but I'd query how far baking a cake promoting a message with which one disagrees is endorsing that opinion, given that, as a lawyer, I express messages I don't agree with all the time.
There's also a bit of a floodgates point. It seems to me that this would give permission say to Muslims working in supermarkets to refuse to sell alcohol given their beliefs consumption of alcohol is sinful.
Which convention gives the right not to be forced to express a message with which they disagreed?"Article 9 of the echr gives the right to freedom of expression interpretated on Buscarini v San Marino to include the right not to be forced to manifest a belief one does not hold. However, article 9(2) allows limitations on the right where this can be justified. In the bakers case, the SC held the bakers had an article 9 right not to manifest the belief in gay marriage and there was no 9(2) justification overriding this. My narrow legal point is that I would query whether a Baker baking a cake with a slogan is them manifesting a belief in that slogan. I don't think most people would think a Baker baking a cake with a slogan saying "support gay marriage" indicates the believe that slogan anymore than them baking a cake saying "Sheffield United, best team in the world" indicates they agree with that sentiment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is homosexualality a sin for christians and against their beliefs?
Which denomination are you asking for and why can't you get the answer from Google?
Well if we have gay people who are Christians and even in the clergy and we have christians who refuse to accept homosexuality promoted in the form of baking who is correct ..
shouldn't the church who the bakers belong to make a statement on who is on the right side of god .?"Some think it is a sin and some think it isn't. You'd think God would get the message straight to his followers... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So it's the design that's offensive not the fact it's a gay couple who want the cake? . I see a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple the same as refusing to bake one for an Asian or black couple .
The bakery would have refused to make that cake for you, if you had requested it. Therefore, they cannot be said to be discriminating on sexual orientation since sexual orientation is not a factor in their decision making process.
Im fine with baker refusing to bake a giant cock .As long as he's consistent with all people.
If it's over the cake design and not based on being gay it's a non story and hardly a victory for the religious .
" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So it's the design that's offensive not the fact it's a gay couple who want the cake? . I see a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple the same as refusing to bake one for an Asian or black couple .
The bakery would have refused to make that cake for you, if you had requested it. Therefore, they cannot be said to be discriminating on sexual orientation since sexual orientation is not a factor in their decision making process.
The sexual orientation claim was always the dodgy one. They were on stronger ground on arguing it was discrimination on the grounds of political belief which is also unlawful
The SC held it could be political belief discrimination, but that had to be balanced against the bakers convention rights not to be forced to express a message with which they disagreed. Hence in this instance, it wasn't unlawful.
I can see the SCs reasoning, but I'd query how far baking a cake promoting a message with which one disagrees is endorsing that opinion, given that, as a lawyer, I express messages I don't agree with all the time.
There's also a bit of a floodgates point. It seems to me that this would give permission say to Muslims working in supermarkets to refuse to sell alcohol given their beliefs consumption of alcohol is sinful.
Which convention gives the right not to be forced to express a message with which they disagreed?
Article 9 of the echr gives the right to freedom of expression interpretated on Buscarini v San Marino to include the right not to be forced to manifest a belief one does not hold.
However, article 9(2) allows limitations on the right where this can be justified. In the bakers case, the SC held the bakers had an article 9 right not to manifest the belief in gay marriage and there was no 9(2) justification overriding this.
My narrow legal point is that I would query whether a Baker baking a cake with a slogan is them manifesting a belief in that slogan. I don't think most people would think a Baker baking a cake with a slogan saying "support gay marriage" indicates the believe that slogan anymore than them baking a cake saying "Sheffield United, best team in the world" indicates they agree with that sentiment. "I would argue that there's no shortage of bakers who will make that cake for them so this was a manufactured problem. The cake also wrongly presented hetrosexual sesame street characters as gay, which trigger me. Thanks for the reference | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is homosexualality a sin for christians and against their beliefs?
Which denomination are you asking for and why can't you get the answer from Google? "Your first question half answers the second According to Google , some do and some don't According to fab that's not true Christianity isn't against. It's just a personal choice of an individual Obviously it's a little confusing Let's say I'm on the cusp of becoming religious and I do not wish to upset the almighty . How do I know whether to stop homosexuals using my business or not ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is homosexualality a sin for christians and against their beliefs?
Which denomination are you asking for and why can't you get the answer from Google?
Well if we have gay people who are Christians and even in the clergy and we have christians who refuse to accept homosexuality promoted in the form of baking who is correct ..
shouldn't the church who the bakers belong to make a statement on who is on the right side of god .?
Some think it is a sin and some think it isn't.
You'd think God would get the message straight to his followers... "Maybe the OP can clarify as he has the unique perspective of being a practising Christian and bi sexual and also on the side of these bakers ..
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is homosexualality a sin for christians and against their beliefs?
Which denomination are you asking for and why can't you get the answer from Google?
Well if we have gay people who are Christians and even in the clergy and we have christians who refuse to accept homosexuality promoted in the form of baking who is correct ..
shouldn't the church who the bakers belong to make a statement on who is on the right side of god .?"There you go again with the slight of hand. They weren't "refusing to accept homosexuality". If Gary and John wanted a cake for their wedding, then they would have had to accept the order. They don't have to accept propoganda pieces. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is homosexualality a sin for christians and against their beliefs?
Which denomination are you asking for and why can't you get the answer from Google?
Your first question half answers the second
According to Google , some do and some don't
According to fab that's not true Christianity isn't against. It's just a personal choice of an individual
Obviously it's a little confusing
Let's say I'm on the cusp of becoming religious and I do not wish to upset the almighty . How do I know whether to stop homosexuals using my business or not ? "Yes that's easy, you don't stop homosexuals using your business. You just aren't forced to make propoganda for anyone. Most people find that comforting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is homosexualality a sin for christians and against their beliefs?
Which denomination are you asking for and why can't you get the answer from Google?
Your first question half answers the second
According to Google , some do and some don't
According to fab that's not true Christianity isn't against. It's just a personal choice of an individual
Obviously it's a little confusing
Let's say I'm on the cusp of becoming religious and I do not wish to upset the almighty . How do I know whether to stop homosexuals using my business or not ? "That entirely depends on which flavour of which religion you're choosing. Only one of them can be right, but they could all be wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So it's the design that's offensive not the fact it's a gay couple who want the cake? . I see a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple the same as refusing to bake one for an Asian or black couple .
The bakery would have refused to make that cake for you, if you had requested it. Therefore, they cannot be said to be discriminating on sexual orientation since sexual orientation is not a factor in their decision making process.
The sexual orientation claim was always the dodgy one. They were on stronger ground on arguing it was discrimination on the grounds of political belief which is also unlawful
The SC held it could be political belief discrimination, but that had to be balanced against the bakers convention rights not to be forced to express a message with which they disagreed. Hence in this instance, it wasn't unlawful.
I can see the SCs reasoning, but I'd query how far baking a cake promoting a message with which one disagrees is endorsing that opinion, given that, as a lawyer, I express messages I don't agree with all the time.
There's also a bit of a floodgates point. It seems to me that this would give permission say to Muslims working in supermarkets to refuse to sell alcohol given their beliefs consumption of alcohol is sinful.
Which convention gives the right not to be forced to express a message with which they disagreed?
Article 9 of the echr gives the right to freedom of expression interpretated on Buscarini v San Marino to include the right not to be forced to manifest a belief one does not hold.
However, article 9(2) allows limitations on the right where this can be justified. In the bakers case, the SC held the bakers had an article 9 right not to manifest the belief in gay marriage and there was no 9(2) justification overriding this.
My narrow legal point is that I would query whether a Baker baking a cake with a slogan is them manifesting a belief in that slogan. I don't think most people would think a Baker baking a cake with a slogan saying "support gay marriage" indicates the believe that slogan anymore than them baking a cake saying "Sheffield United, best team in the world" indicates they agree with that sentiment.
I would argue that there's no shortage of bakers who will make that cake for them so this was a manufactured problem. The cake also wrongly presented hetrosexual sesame street characters as gay, which trigger me. Thanks for the reference "The existence of other bakers is beside the point. It's no defence to a cafe refusing to serve black people to say there are plenty of cafés that will. I am a bit in two minds about this. On the one hand in theory I'd make a clear distinction between immutable characteristics like race and sex where discrimination should be unlawful and political or religious beliefs which are not immutable and thus where discrimination might be permissible. (the Conservative party, for instance, would be quite within its right to refuse to employ a Labour party member). On the other hand, if you hold to that in practical terns it can cause all sorts of problems. It being lawful to refuse to employ Muslims or Catholics for instance... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is homosexualality a sin for christians and against their beliefs?
Which denomination are you asking for and why can't you get the answer from Google?
Well if we have gay people who are Christians and even in the clergy and we have christians who refuse to accept homosexuality promoted in the form of baking who is correct ..
shouldn't the church who the bakers belong to make a statement on who is on the right side of god .?
Some think it is a sin and some think it isn't.
You'd think God would get the message straight to his followers...
Maybe the OP can clarify as he has the unique perspective of being a practising Christian and bi sexual and also on the side of these bakers ..
"It's almost as if God doesn't exist and human beings make it up as they go along... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So it's the design that's offensive not the fact it's a gay couple who want the cake? . I see a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple the same as refusing to bake one for an Asian or black couple .
The bakery would have refused to make that cake for you, if you had requested it. Therefore, they cannot be said to be discriminating on sexual orientation since sexual orientation is not a factor in their decision making process.
The sexual orientation claim was always the dodgy one. They were on stronger ground on arguing it was discrimination on the grounds of political belief which is also unlawful
The SC held it could be political belief discrimination, but that had to be balanced against the bakers convention rights not to be forced to express a message with which they disagreed. Hence in this instance, it wasn't unlawful.
I can see the SCs reasoning, but I'd query how far baking a cake promoting a message with which one disagrees is endorsing that opinion, given that, as a lawyer, I express messages I don't agree with all the time.
There's also a bit of a floodgates point. It seems to me that this would give permission say to Muslims working in supermarkets to refuse to sell alcohol given their beliefs consumption of alcohol is sinful.
Which convention gives the right not to be forced to express a message with which they disagreed?
Article 9 of the echr gives the right to freedom of expression interpretated on Buscarini v San Marino to include the right not to be forced to manifest a belief one does not hold.
However, article 9(2) allows limitations on the right where this can be justified. In the bakers case, the SC held the bakers had an article 9 right not to manifest the belief in gay marriage and there was no 9(2) justification overriding this.
My narrow legal point is that I would query whether a Baker baking a cake with a slogan is them manifesting a belief in that slogan. I don't think most people would think a Baker baking a cake with a slogan saying "support gay marriage" indicates the believe that slogan anymore than them baking a cake saying "Sheffield United, best team in the world" indicates they agree with that sentiment.
I would argue that there's no shortage of bakers who will make that cake for them so this was a manufactured problem. The cake also wrongly presented hetrosexual sesame street characters as gay, which trigger me. Thanks for the reference
The existence of other bakers is beside the point. It's no defence to a cafe refusing to serve black people to say there are plenty of cafés that will.
I am a bit in two minds about this. On the one hand in theory I'd make a clear distinction between immutable characteristics like race and sex where discrimination should be unlawful and political or religious beliefs which are not immutable and thus where discrimination might be permissible. (the Conservative party, for instance, would be quite within its right to refuse to employ a Labour party member).
On the other hand, if you hold to that in practical terns it can cause all sorts of problems. It being lawful to refuse to employ Muslims or Catholics for instance... "But the baker will serve homosexuals, that is clear. The better analogy is that they don't want to make a "Black lives matter" cake, not that they won't serve black people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So we can discriminate if we feel it's propaganda or promoting something we disagree with . This will open a whole can of worms . "Oh dear, we'll have to debate and discuss things like adults - how terrible. Can't we just chant slogans and the loudest chant wins? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So we can discriminate if we feel it's propaganda or promoting something we disagree with . This will open a whole can of worms .
Oh dear, we'll have to debate and discuss things like adults - how terrible. Can't we just chant slogans and the loudest chant wins? "Do Easter eggs promote Christianity ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So we can discriminate if we feel it's propaganda or promoting something we disagree with . This will open a whole can of worms . "The essence of the ruling is: “The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed.” I suppose it's similar to insisting a Jewish or Muslim baker supply you with Hot Cross Buns. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So we can discriminate if we feel it's propaganda or promoting something we disagree with . This will open a whole can of worms .
Oh dear, we'll have to debate and discuss things like adults - how terrible. Can't we just chant slogans and the loudest chant wins?
Do Easter eggs promote Christianity ?"You tell me. The concepts of giving eggs at Easter has always baffled me. For whatever reason, my parents never mentioned any Easter bunny to me and when some kids mentioned it at school, I thought they were retarded. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So we can discriminate if we feel it's propaganda or promoting something we disagree with . This will open a whole can of worms .
Oh dear, we'll have to debate and discuss things like adults - how terrible. Can't we just chant slogans and the loudest chant wins?
Do Easter eggs promote Christianity ?
You tell me. The concepts of giving eggs at Easter has always baffled me. For whatever reason, my parents never mentioned any Easter bunny to me and when some kids mentioned it at school, I thought they were retarded. "I would have to assume anyone selling an Easter egg was promoting Christianity and therefore an atheist or a non Christian could rightly not stock them or refuse to sell them .. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So we can discriminate if we feel it's propaganda or promoting something we disagree with . This will open a whole can of worms .
Oh dear, we'll have to debate and discuss things like adults - how terrible. Can't we just chant slogans and the loudest chant wins?
Do Easter eggs promote Christianity ?"The serious point is that, as I said above, it gives carte blanche to anyone refusing to do anything if it conflicts with their sincere beliefs. A worker in a card shop becomes a Jehovahs witness and refuses to sell Christmas cards as to do so is to promote an idolatrous festival. Seems that person can't now be sacked... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So we can discriminate if we feel it's propaganda or promoting something we disagree with . This will open a whole can of worms .
Oh dear, we'll have to debate and discuss things like adults - how terrible. Can't we just chant slogans and the loudest chant wins?
Do Easter eggs promote Christianity ?
You tell me. The concepts of giving eggs at Easter has always baffled me. For whatever reason, my parents never mentioned any Easter bunny to me and when some kids mentioned it at school, I thought they were retarded.
I would have to assume anyone selling an Easter egg was promoting Christianity and therefore an atheist or a non Christian could rightly not stock them or refuse to sell them .. "I'm sorry I disagree here x please , To my knowledge eggs have never promoted Christianity , only Easter and for me just like Xmas both are good valid pagan times of the year , Easter being a festival me beginning and birth the start of a growing season. And of course Xmas predates any Christian nonsense a good ole fashioned mid winter festival | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So we can discriminate if we feel it's propaganda or promoting something we disagree with . This will open a whole can of worms .
Oh dear, we'll have to debate and discuss things like adults - how terrible. Can't we just chant slogans and the loudest chant wins?
Do Easter eggs promote Christianity ?
You tell me. The concepts of giving eggs at Easter has always baffled me. For whatever reason, my parents never mentioned any Easter bunny to me and when some kids mentioned it at school, I thought they were retarded.
I would have to assume anyone selling an Easter egg was promoting Christianity and therefore an atheist or a non Christian could rightly not stock them or refuse to sell them .. "They could indeed. Fortunately most people just want to get on in life and let people believe in whatever they want... mostly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So we can discriminate if we feel it's propaganda or promoting something we disagree with . This will open a whole can of worms .
Oh dear, we'll have to debate and discuss things like adults - how terrible. Can't we just chant slogans and the loudest chant wins?
Do Easter eggs promote Christianity ?
You tell me. The concepts of giving eggs at Easter has always baffled me. For whatever reason, my parents never mentioned any Easter bunny to me and when some kids mentioned it at school, I thought they were retarded.
I would have to assume anyone selling an Easter egg was promoting Christianity and therefore an atheist or a non Christian could rightly not stock them or refuse to sell them ..
I'm sorry I disagree here x please ,
To my knowledge eggs have never promoted Christianity , only Easter and for me just like Xmas both are good valid pagan times of the year , Easter being a festival me beginning and birth the start of a growing season.
And of course Xmas predates any Christian nonsense a good ole fashioned mid winter festival "I completely agree all Christian festivals were previously pagan festivals.Just try telling that to a Christian .Easter is a Christian festival today and the eggs and bunnies are part of Christianity regardless of historical fact . Try telling Christians ,Christmas trees have nothing to do with the religion .Yet they are iconic symbols of Christanity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So we can discriminate if we feel it's propaganda or promoting something we disagree with . This will open a whole can of worms .
Oh dear, we'll have to debate and discuss things like adults - how terrible. Can't we just chant slogans and the loudest chant wins?
Do Easter eggs promote Christianity ?
You tell me. The concepts of giving eggs at Easter has always baffled me. For whatever reason, my parents never mentioned any Easter bunny to me and when some kids mentioned it at school, I thought they were retarded.
I would have to assume anyone selling an Easter egg was promoting Christianity and therefore an atheist or a non Christian could rightly not stock them or refuse to sell them ..
I'm sorry I disagree here x please ,
To my knowledge eggs have never promoted Christianity , only Easter and for me just like Xmas both are good valid pagan times of the year , Easter being a festival me beginning and birth the start of a growing season.
And of course Xmas predates any Christian nonsense a good ole fashioned mid winter festival
I completely agree all Christian festivals were previously pagan festivals.Just try telling that to a Christian .Easter is a Christian festival today and the eggs and bunnies are part of Christianity regardless of historical fact .
Try telling Christians ,Christmas trees have nothing to do with the religion .Yet they are iconic symbols of Christanity."And the point is its what's in the mind of the person that matters. If someone sincerely believes eggs are symbolic of Christianity, the fact that other people disagree with this is irrelevant. Just as the fact that many people think that Christianity is not incompatible with gay marriage was irrelevant in this case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's difficult line. As someone that used to run a cake business. I refused to do any cakes that were of a drugs nature in design. I also refused to do any cakes that were too crude... Despite being a swinger. Also cakes that are garish I would often be fully booked. I think what I'm trying to say is that a cake maker is a artist, to get the art the customer desires at a high standard then it should be something the cake maker is happy to do. Oh and I've made a gay marriage cake and was proud but it was a lovely tasteful style cake " Any cake maker or anyone else can refuse to provide a service to a customer as long as it's not on the ground of one of the protected characteristics. The issue here was whether the refusal was on the ground of sexual orientation or political belief which are protected characteristics. There would have been no problem had they refused to do the cake as they didn't like the design. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's difficult line. As someone that used to run a cake business. I refused to do any cakes that were of a drugs nature in design. I also refused to do any cakes that were too crude... Despite being a swinger. Also cakes that are garish I would often be fully booked. I think what I'm trying to say is that a cake maker is a artist, to get the art the customer desires at a high standard then it should be something the cake maker is happy to do. Oh and I've made a gay marriage cake and was proud but it was a lovely tasteful style cake Any cake maker or anyone else can refuse to provide a service to a customer as long as it's not on the ground of one of the protected characteristics. The issue here was whether the refusal was on the ground of sexual orientation or political belief which are protected characteristics. There would have been no problem had they refused to do the cake as they didn't like the design. " So what do you think the outcome would have been if it was a political discrimination case and someone didn't want to make a pro-Brexit cake and assume it was a contraversial design too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's difficult line. As someone that used to run a cake business. I refused to do any cakes that were of a drugs nature in design. I also refused to do any cakes that were too crude... Despite being a swinger. Also cakes that are garish I would often be fully booked. I think what I'm trying to say is that a cake maker is a artist, to get the art the customer desires at a high standard then it should be something the cake maker is happy to do. Oh and I've made a gay marriage cake and was proud but it was a lovely tasteful style cake Any cake maker or anyone else can refuse to provide a service to a customer as long as it's not on the ground of one of the protected characteristics. The issue here was whether the refusal was on the ground of sexual orientation or political belief which are protected characteristics. There would have been no problem had they refused to do the cake as they didn't like the design. So what do you think the outcome would have been if it was a political discrimination case and someone didn't want to make a pro-Brexit cake and assume it was a contraversial design too." * controversial. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's almost as if God doesn't exist and human beings make it up as they go along... " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's difficult line. As someone that used to run a cake business. I refused to do any cakes that were of a drugs nature in design. I also refused to do any cakes that were too crude... Despite being a swinger. Also cakes that are garish I would often be fully booked. I think what I'm trying to say is that a cake maker is a artist, to get the art the customer desires at a high standard then it should be something the cake maker is happy to do. Oh and I've made a gay marriage cake and was proud but it was a lovely tasteful style cake Any cake maker or anyone else can refuse to provide a service to a customer as long as it's not on the ground of one of the protected characteristics. The issue here was whether the refusal was on the ground of sexual orientation or political belief which are protected characteristics. There would have been no problem had they refused to do the cake as they didn't like the design. So what do you think the outcome would have been if it was a political discrimination case and someone didn't want to make a pro-Brexit cake and assume it was a contraversial design too." On the Ashers authority if any Baker has political or religious objections to a slogan on a cake he can refuse to bake it. I think the flaw in the SC reasoning is that baking a cake with a "support gay marriage" slogan is to support gay marriage. I'd suggest it doesn't. No more than an atheist printer printer the Bible is him supporting Christianity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's difficult line. As someone that used to run a cake business. I refused to do any cakes that were of a drugs nature in design. I also refused to do any cakes that were too crude... Despite being a swinger. Also cakes that are garish I would often be fully booked. I think what I'm trying to say is that a cake maker is a artist, to get the art the customer desires at a high standard then it should be something the cake maker is happy to do. Oh and I've made a gay marriage cake and was proud but it was a lovely tasteful style cake Any cake maker or anyone else can refuse to provide a service to a customer as long as it's not on the ground of one of the protected characteristics. The issue here was whether the refusal was on the ground of sexual orientation or political belief which are protected characteristics. There would have been no problem had they refused to do the cake as they didn't like the design. So what do you think the outcome would have been if it was a political discrimination case and someone didn't want to make a pro-Brexit cake and assume it was a contraversial design too. On the Ashers authority if any Baker has political or religious objections to a slogan on a cake he can refuse to bake it. I think the flaw in the SC reasoning is that baking a cake with a "support gay marriage" slogan is to support gay marriage. I'd suggest it doesn't. No more than an atheist printer printer the Bible is him supporting Christianity. " I would have to agree with your logic .. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'd suggest it doesn't. No more than an atheist printer printer the Bible is him supporting Christianity. " What if the Atheist printer refused to print the Bible, the Koran or any religous book? They are after all only beliefs indoctrinated by nuture whereas sexuality and gender are nature. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"common sense at last nobody should be made to do anything against conscience i have nothing against guys ." Does this mean anyone can be a consciensess objecter to anything?? Can a Atheist postie refuse to deliver Christmas cards because it promotes Christianity ... 
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"common sense at last nobody should be made to do anything against conscience i have nothing against guys . Does this mean anyone can be a consciensess objecter to anything?? Can a Atheist postie refuse to deliver Christmas cards because it promotes Christianity ...
"How does he/she know what's in the envelope? Hope they ain't been peeking. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"common sense at last nobody should be made to do anything against conscience i have nothing against guys . Does this mean anyone can be a consciensess objecter to anything?? Can a Atheist postie refuse to deliver Christmas cards because it promotes Christianity ...
"The answer now has to be yes I think. Presumably an Atheist builder can lawfully tell his boss he won't work on a church... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"common sense at last nobody should be made to do anything against conscience i have nothing against guys . Does this mean anyone can be a consciensess objecter to anything?? Can a Atheist postie refuse to deliver Christmas cards because it promotes Christianity ...
How does he/she know what's in the envelope?
Hope they ain't been peeking."Good point maybe a Christmas stamp would enough to refuse or "Merry Christmas " written on the envelope.Supports Christianity ... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's difficult line. As someone that used to run a cake business. I refused to do any cakes that were of a drugs nature in design. I also refused to do any cakes that were too crude... Despite being a swinger. Also cakes that are garish I would often be fully booked. I think what I'm trying to say is that a cake maker is a artist, to get the art the customer desires at a high standard then it should be something the cake maker is happy to do. Oh and I've made a gay marriage cake and was proud but it was a lovely tasteful style cake Any cake maker or anyone else can refuse to provide a service to a customer as long as it's not on the ground of one of the protected characteristics. The issue here was whether the refusal was on the ground of sexual orientation or political belief which are protected characteristics. There would have been no problem had they refused to do the cake as they didn't like the design. So what do you think the outcome would have been if it was a political discrimination case and someone didn't want to make a pro-Brexit cake and assume it was a contraversial design too. On the Ashers authority if any Baker has political or religious objections to a slogan on a cake he can refuse to bake it. I think the flaw in the SC reasoning is that baking a cake with a "support gay marriage" slogan is to support gay marriage. I'd suggest it doesn't. No more than an atheist printer printer the Bible is him supporting Christianity. " You have said before that you wouldn't swing with a racist couple even if you found them physically attractive. Do you think that would be endorsing their views? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's difficult line. As someone that used to run a cake business. I refused to do any cakes that were of a drugs nature in design. I also refused to do any cakes that were too crude... Despite being a swinger. Also cakes that are garish I would often be fully booked. I think what I'm trying to say is that a cake maker is a artist, to get the art the customer desires at a high standard then it should be something the cake maker is happy to do. Oh and I've made a gay marriage cake and was proud but it was a lovely tasteful style cake Any cake maker or anyone else can refuse to provide a service to a customer as long as it's not on the ground of one of the protected characteristics. The issue here was whether the refusal was on the ground of sexual orientation or political belief which are protected characteristics. There would have been no problem had they refused to do the cake as they didn't like the design. So what do you think the outcome would have been if it was a political discrimination case and someone didn't want to make a pro-Brexit cake and assume it was a contraversial design too. On the Ashers authority if any Baker has political or religious objections to a slogan on a cake he can refuse to bake it. I think the flaw in the SC reasoning is that baking a cake with a "support gay marriage" slogan is to support gay marriage. I'd suggest it doesn't. No more than an atheist printer printer the Bible is him supporting Christianity. You have said before that you wouldn't swing with a racist couple even if you found them physically attractive. Do you think that would be endorsing their views? " That's a personal interaction. Completely different from providing goods or services to someone on a business level. Ive acted as a lawyer for many people with whose views I disagreed. I wouldn't spend any social time with them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's difficult line. As someone that used to run a cake business. I refused to do any cakes that were of a drugs nature in design. I also refused to do any cakes that were too crude... Despite being a swinger. Also cakes that are garish I would often be fully booked. I think what I'm trying to say is that a cake maker is a artist, to get the art the customer desires at a high standard then it should be something the cake maker is happy to do. Oh and I've made a gay marriage cake and was proud but it was a lovely tasteful style cake Any cake maker or anyone else can refuse to provide a service to a customer as long as it's not on the ground of one of the protected characteristics. The issue here was whether the refusal was on the ground of sexual orientation or political belief which are protected characteristics. There would have been no problem had they refused to do the cake as they didn't like the design. So what do you think the outcome would have been if it was a political discrimination case and someone didn't want to make a pro-Brexit cake and assume it was a contraversial design too. On the Ashers authority if any Baker has political or religious objections to a slogan on a cake he can refuse to bake it. I think the flaw in the SC reasoning is that baking a cake with a "support gay marriage" slogan is to support gay marriage. I'd suggest it doesn't. No more than an atheist printer printer the Bible is him supporting Christianity. You have said before that you wouldn't swing with a racist couple even if you found them physically attractive. Do you think that would be endorsing their views? That's a personal interaction. Completely different from providing goods or services to someone on a business level. Ive acted as a lawyer for many people with whose views I disagreed. I wouldn't spend any social time with them. " I know it's not the same thing. But on some level you understand the principle. I have plenty of friends that are pro-abortion, but i wouldn't work in a professional capacity with an abortion provider (e.g. planned parenthood). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The case, and the lengths the couple have gone to, have certainly shone a light on attitudes in Northern Ireland. " Is it not also a reflection of gay activists? - to use your own logic. This wasn't really about him not being able to get his cake made. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's difficult line. As someone that used to run a cake business. I refused to do any cakes that were of a drugs nature in design. I also refused to do any cakes that were too crude... Despite being a swinger. Also cakes that are garish I would often be fully booked. I think what I'm trying to say is that a cake maker is a artist, to get the art the customer desires at a high standard then it should be something the cake maker is happy to do. Oh and I've made a gay marriage cake and was proud but it was a lovely tasteful style cake Any cake maker or anyone else can refuse to provide a service to a customer as long as it's not on the ground of one of the protected characteristics. The issue here was whether the refusal was on the ground of sexual orientation or political belief which are protected characteristics. There would have been no problem had they refused to do the cake as they didn't like the design. So what do you think the outcome would have been if it was a political discrimination case and someone didn't want to make a pro-Brexit cake and assume it was a contraversial design too. On the Ashers authority if any Baker has political or religious objections to a slogan on a cake he can refuse to bake it. I think the flaw in the SC reasoning is that baking a cake with a "support gay marriage" slogan is to support gay marriage. I'd suggest it doesn't. No more than an atheist printer printer the Bible is him supporting Christianity. You have said before that you wouldn't swing with a racist couple even if you found them physically attractive. Do you think that would be endorsing their views? That's a personal interaction. Completely different from providing goods or services to someone on a business level. Ive acted as a lawyer for many people with whose views I disagreed. I wouldn't spend any social time with them. I know it's not the same thing. But on some level you understand the principle. I have plenty of friends that are pro-abortion, but i wouldn't work in a professional capacity with an abortion provider (e.g. planned parenthood). " Part of being a lawyer is divorcing yourself from your clients opinions and putting forward arguments with which you disagree. Hence my view that the bakers should have done the cake and taken the money. It is completely analogous to a non Christian printer printing a Bible. You're doing a technical job, but endorsing what people say. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I know it's not the same thing. But on some level you understand the principle. I have plenty of friends that are pro-abortion, but i wouldn't work in a professional capacity with an abortion provider (e.g. planned parenthood). Part of being a lawyer is divorcing yourself from your clients opinions and putting forward arguments with which you disagree. Hence my view that the bakers should have done the cake and taken the money. It is completely analogous to a non Christian printer printing a Bible. You're doing a technical job, but endorsing what people say. " It's not completely analogous. Any remotely intelligent person can see value in the bible, even if they don't believe in God. To think otherwise would be to dismiss the entire literature genre of fiction. It may shock you to realise that even Christians believe some parts of the Bible are fiction. Personally i see no value in abortion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I know it's not the same thing. But on some level you understand the principle. I have plenty of friends that are pro-abortion, but i wouldn't work in a professional capacity with an abortion provider (e.g. planned parenthood). Part of being a lawyer is divorcing yourself from your clients opinions and putting forward arguments with which you disagree. Hence my view that the bakers should have done the cake and taken the money. It is completely analogous to a non Christian printer printing a Bible. You're doing a technical job, but endorsing what people say. It's not completely analogous. Any remotely intelligent person can see value in the bible, even if they don't believe in God. To think otherwise would be to dismiss the entire literature genre of fiction. It may shock you to realise that even Christians believe some parts of the Bible are fiction. Personally i see no value in abortion. " I'm obviously not referring to the Bible specifically. Take a religious book we would probably all agree is a load of old bollocks, the book of Mormon say. No one would think someone printing that book was necessarily a Mormon. Or that someone printing Marx's works was a Marxist (he's been published by many staunchly capitalist firms). As an aside, stop assuming I know nothing about Christianity. I am quite well aware most Christians are not Bible literalists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I know it's not the same thing. But on some level you understand the principle. I have plenty of friends that are pro-abortion, but i wouldn't work in a professional capacity with an abortion provider (e.g. planned parenthood). Part of being a lawyer is divorcing yourself from your clients opinions and putting forward arguments with which you disagree. Hence my view that the bakers should have done the cake and taken the money. It is completely analogous to a non Christian printer printing a Bible. You're doing a technical job, but endorsing what people say. It's not completely analogous. Any remotely intelligent person can see value in the bible, even if they don't believe in God. To think otherwise would be to dismiss the entire literature genre of fiction. It may shock you to realise that even Christians believe some parts of the Bible are fiction. Personally i see no value in abortion. I'm obviously not referring to the Bible specifically. Take a religious book we would probably all agree is a load of old bollocks, the book of Mormon say. No one would think someone printing that book was necessarily a Mormon. Or that someone printing Marx's works was a Marxist (he's been published by many staunchly capitalist firms). As an aside, stop assuming I know nothing about Christianity. I am quite well aware most Christians are not Bible literalists. " You sound a little triggered there. I know you are pretty well educated on religion, biases and strawmen arguements aside. You are one of the few people on the site that actually understand a lot of the underlying philosophy that can trace back, in parts, the ancient Greece. I think most people would find it shocking to hear a Catholic Priest refer to some parts of the Bible of fiction, hence my comment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I know it's not the same thing. But on some level you understand the principle. I have plenty of friends that are pro-abortion, but i wouldn't work in a professional capacity with an abortion provider (e.g. planned parenthood). Part of being a lawyer is divorcing yourself from your clients opinions and putting forward arguments with which you disagree. Hence my view that the bakers should have done the cake and taken the money. It is completely analogous to a non Christian printer printing a Bible. You're doing a technical job, but endorsing what people say. It's not completely analogous. Any remotely intelligent person can see value in the bible, even if they don't believe in God. To think otherwise would be to dismiss the entire literature genre of fiction. It may shock you to realise that even Christians believe some parts of the Bible are fiction. Personally i see no value in abortion. I'm obviously not referring to the Bible specifically. Take a religious book we would probably all agree is a load of old bollocks, the book of Mormon say. No one would think someone printing that book was necessarily a Mormon. Or that someone printing Marx's works was a Marxist (he's been published by many staunchly capitalist firms). As an aside, stop assuming I know nothing about Christianity. I am quite well aware most Christians are not Bible literalists. You sound a little triggered there. I know you are pretty well educated on religion, biases and strawmen arguements aside. You are one of the few people on the site that actually understand a lot of the underlying philosophy that can trace back, in parts, the ancient Greece. I think most people would find it shocking to hear a Catholic Priest refer to some parts of the Bible of fiction, hence my comment. " I can't believe you used the word triggered. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I know it's not the same thing. But on some level you understand the principle. I have plenty of friends that are pro-abortion, but i wouldn't work in a professional capacity with an abortion provider (e.g. planned parenthood). Part of being a lawyer is divorcing yourself from your clients opinions and putting forward arguments with which you disagree. Hence my view that the bakers should have done the cake and taken the money. It is completely analogous to a non Christian printer printing a Bible. You're doing a technical job, but endorsing what people say. It's not completely analogous. Any remotely intelligent person can see value in the bible, even if they don't believe in God. To think otherwise would be to dismiss the entire literature genre of fiction. It may shock you to realise that even Christians believe some parts of the Bible are fiction. Personally i see no value in abortion. I'm obviously not referring to the Bible specifically. Take a religious book we would probably all agree is a load of old bollocks, the book of Mormon say. No one would think someone printing that book was necessarily a Mormon. Or that someone printing Marx's works was a Marxist (he's been published by many staunchly capitalist firms). As an aside, stop assuming I know nothing about Christianity. I am quite well aware most Christians are not Bible literalists. You sound a little triggered there. I know you are pretty well educated on religion, biases and strawmen arguements aside. You are one of the few people on the site that actually understand a lot of the underlying philosophy that can trace back, in parts, the ancient Greece. I think most people would find it shocking to hear a Catholic Priest refer to some parts of the Bible of fiction, hence my comment. I can't believe you used the word triggered." I think it sounds hillarious. It also has enough syllables to make into songs like adding it to lady Gaga 'telephone'. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm curious as to whether if the message was black lives matter or women for equal rights was refused would people's opinions be the same" Look up Blinks of Bicester. People were outraged (rightly so) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm curious as to whether if the message was black lives matter or women for equal rights was refused would people's opinions be the same Look up Blinks of Bicester. People were outraged (rightly so)" Googled it but didn't see any news stories??? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"I'm curious as to whether if the message was black lives matter or women for equal rights was refused would people's opinions be the same Look up Blinks of Bicester. People were outraged (rightly so) Googled it but didn't see any news stories???" I found it quite easily. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's difficult line. As someone that used to run a cake business. I refused to do any cakes that were of a drugs nature in design. I also refused to do any cakes that were too crude... Despite being a swinger. Also cakes that are garish I would often be fully booked. I think what I'm trying to say is that a cake maker is a artist, to get the art the customer desires at a high standard then it should be something the cake maker is happy to do. Oh and I've made a gay marriage cake and was proud but it was a lovely tasteful style cake Any cake maker or anyone else can refuse to provide a service to a customer as long as it's not on the ground of one of the protected characteristics. The issue here was whether the refusal was on the ground of sexual orientation or political belief which are protected characteristics. There would have been no problem had they refused to do the cake as they didn't like the design. So what do you think the outcome would have been if it was a political discrimination case and someone didn't want to make a pro-Brexit cake and assume it was a contraversial design too. On the Ashers authority if any Baker has political or religious objections to a slogan on a cake he can refuse to bake it. I think the flaw in the SC reasoning is that baking a cake with a "support gay marriage" slogan is to support gay marriage. I'd suggest it doesn't. No more than an atheist printer printer the Bible is him supporting Christianity. You have said before that you wouldn't swing with a racist couple even if you found them physically attractive. Do you think that would be endorsing their views? That's a personal interaction. Completely different from providing goods or services to someone on a business level. Ive acted as a lawyer for many people with whose views I disagreed. I wouldn't spend any social time with them. I know it's not the same thing. But on some level you understand the principle. I have plenty of friends that are pro-abortion, but i wouldn't work in a professional capacity with an abortion provider (e.g. planned parenthood). Part of being a lawyer is divorcing yourself from your clients opinions and putting forward arguments with which you disagree. Hence my view that the bakers should have done the cake and taken the money. It is completely analogous to a non Christian printer printing a Bible. You're doing a technical job, but endorsing what people say. " I've thought about it. The problem was the wife accepted the order without negotiating. Personally i would have agreed to take the order but made it clear that I'm sub-contracting it to another bakery and whacked on a nice handling charge, clearly stated on the quote. The charge would probably be around 8x the cake. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm curious as to whether if the message was black lives matter or women for equal rights was refused would people's opinions be the same Look up Blinks of Bicester. People were outraged (rightly so) Googled it but didn't see any news stories??? I found it quite easily." Oh I see, I searched for "Blinks of Bicester cakes". Yeah they sound like cunts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think common sense has prevailed here. I think with have to be careful with the tools we use to make free society for all. Ironically if we are not careful with the tools we use in the name of freedom, justice and rights we can actually create a framework that limits our freedoms of thought and expression. It begs the question should a small buisness have any rights to refuse service to anything they don't agree with. At what point does your sovereignty as buisness owner end in regards to the products you produce and the messages they endorse?" We all have limits. I think we should be encouraged to think about what a reasonable, disinterested person with British values would consider, as opposed to whatever the most radical leftists or conservative can manage to take offence to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So it's the design that's offensive not the fact it's a gay couple who want the cake? . I see a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple the same as refusing to bake one for an Asian or black couple .
The bakery would have refused to make that cake for you, if you had requested it. Therefore, they cannot be said to be discriminating on sexual orientation since sexual orientation is not a factor in their decision making process.
The sexual orientation claim was always the dodgy one. They were on stronger ground on arguing it was discrimination on the grounds of political belief which is also unlawful
The SC held it could be political belief discrimination, but that had to be balanced against the bakers convention rights not to be forced to express a message with which they disagreed. Hence in this instance, it wasn't unlawful.
I can see the SCs reasoning, but I'd query how far baking a cake promoting a message with which one disagrees is endorsing that opinion, given that, as a lawyer, I express messages I don't agree with all the time.
There's also a bit of a floodgates point. It seems to me that this would give permission say to Muslims working in supermarkets to refuse to sell alcohol given their beliefs consumption of alcohol is sinful.
Which convention gives the right not to be forced to express a message with which they disagreed?
Article 9 of the echr gives the right to freedom of expression interpretated on Buscarini v San Marino to include the right not to be forced to manifest a belief one does not hold.
However, article 9(2) allows limitations on the right where this can be justified. In the bakers case, the SC held the bakers had an article 9 right not to manifest the belief in gay marriage and there was no 9(2) justification overriding this.
My narrow legal point is that I would query whether a Baker baking a cake with a slogan is them manifesting a belief in that slogan. I don't think most people would think a Baker baking a cake with a slogan saying "support gay marriage" indicates the believe that slogan anymore than them baking a cake saying "Sheffield United, best team in the world" indicates they agree with that sentiment. "Or a printing company printing campaign posters for opposing parties! How can a provider be deemed to support the sentiment of the ..in this case a campaign poster. Am I missing something? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the argument is that the customer wasn't discriminated against because of their sexuality. If the baker had told the customer he refused to serve gay people, that would be clear discrimination. They simply found the message offensive (why, I have no idea, other than some sort of bigotry typical of Northern Ireland christians). I guess if the message had been "I love Adolf Hitler" or something, they'd be equally entitled to decline. The case, and the lengths the couple have gone to, have certainly shone a light on attitudes in Northern Ireland. " Some attitudes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In a rare victory for common sense, the Supreme Court have agreed that a northern Ireland baker should not have be forced to make a cake supporting gay marriage (in general). Before anyone throws their toys out the pram, I encourage you to look at the cake design first. It becomes a lot more obvious why the decision was made. Essentially it's no different to BrewDog saying that trump policies contradict their core values or Nike deciding they want Colin Kaepernick in their branding. " My take on it is Actually I agree totally their shop their opinion and their right to refuse However I do think their opinion does need to be made blatantly clear and as it is blatantly clear it is open for comment x Their opinion is , Christiany thinks homosexuality is wrong and should not be condoned but condemned! So what do the good people of fab think of people Christian , Muslim , Buddhist atheist or whatever who think it is wrong , just as stealing is , think that two humans of the same sex want and do intimately pleasure each other x And are those good people happy that a doctrine of any description , or denomination actively and or openly tells and persuades good humans who wish to join or follow , that homosexuality is a bad thing that should be condemned and objected to including objecting to people who are trying to overcome the negative bias and opinion towards their chosen or not so chosen sexuality ? Xxx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In a rare victory for common sense " I find common sense over rated | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm curious as to whether if the message was black lives matter or women for equal rights was refused would people's opinions be the same" Interesting that you haven’t addressed the point made by Lilly OP ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In a rare victory for common sense, the Supreme Court have agreed that a northern Ireland baker should not have be forced to make a cake supporting gay marriage (in general). Before anyone throws their toys out the pram, I encourage you to look at the cake design first. It becomes a lot more obvious why the decision was made. Essentially it's no different to BrewDog saying that trump policies contradict their core values or Nike deciding they want Colin Kaepernick in their branding. My take on it is Actually I agree totally their shop their opinion and their right to refuse However I do think their opinion does need to be made blatantly clear and as it is blatantly clear it is open for comment x Their opinion is , Christiany thinks homosexuality is wrong and should not be condoned but condemned! So what do the good people of fab think of people Christian , Muslim , Buddhist atheist or whatever who think it is wrong , just as stealing is , think that two humans of the same sex want and do intimately pleasure each other x And are those good people happy that a doctrine of any description , or denomination actively and or openly tells and persuades good humans who wish to join or follow , that homosexuality is a bad thing that should be condemned and objected to including objecting to people who are trying to overcome the negative bias and opinion towards their chosen or not so chosen sexuality ? Xxx " In a nutshell David Beckham quite rightly was NOT prosecuted for speeding As a lawyer illustrated the law , but he was speeding These Christians were quite rightly not convicted based upon the law But they still think homosexuals are wrong And I don't agree with like or support any narrow minded human with such views they are a negative influence on humanity and their vile backward opinions , free as they are to hold them should be confronted and contested every time they are spat xxx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In a rare victory for common sense, the Supreme Court have agreed that a northern Ireland baker should not have be forced to make a cake supporting gay marriage (in general). Before anyone throws their toys out the pram, I encourage you to look at the cake design first. It becomes a lot more obvious why the decision was made. Essentially it's no different to BrewDog saying that trump policies contradict their core values or Nike deciding they want Colin Kaepernick in their branding. My take on it is Actually I agree totally their shop their opinion and their right to refuse However I do think their opinion does need to be made blatantly clear and as it is blatantly clear it is open for comment x Their opinion is , Christiany thinks homosexuality is wrong and should not be condoned but condemned! So what do the good people of fab think of people Christian , Muslim , Buddhist atheist or whatever who think it is wrong , just as stealing is , think that two humans of the same sex want and do intimately pleasure each other x And are those good people happy that a doctrine of any description , or denomination actively and or openly tells and persuades good humans who wish to join or follow , that homosexuality is a bad thing that should be condemned and objected to including objecting to people who are trying to overcome the negative bias and opinion towards their chosen or not so chosen sexuality ? Xxx In a nutshell David Beckham quite rightly was NOT prosecuted for speeding As a lawyer illustrated the law , but he was speeding These Christians were quite rightly not convicted based upon the law But they still think homosexuals are wrong And I don't agree with like or support any narrow minded human with such views they are a negative influence on humanity and their vile backward opinions , free as they are to hold them should be confronted and contested every time they are spat xxx " So what do you suggest then? Re education for people who do not agree with anyone who is LGBTQ ? They are entitled to thier view and belief as they do no harm to anyone! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The key tenets of any religion boil down to "don't be a dick". The rest of it is just people, like these bakers being dicks. So much hypocrisy. S" So you think the huge quantity of Islamic and Christian followers who think their religion advocates homosexuality should be condemned are just being Dicks and they have not been influenced by a particular domination or sects doctrine ? The Vicker who I disagree with daily is mearly a Dick and all who listen and agree with him just dicks they have not been influenced by an widely used interpretation of Christianity and of course they all say they think that interpretation IS the word of God , how are we to know it isn't or they for that matter So no let's not piss about or make excuses , it is pretty well accepted , a version of Christianity , interpreted from the bible Just as versions of Islam , interpreted from the old testament and then the Quran pretty much dictate that to be a good follower the opinion that homosexuality should be condemned is taught and believe d to be the word of God ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In a rare victory for common sense, the Supreme Court have agreed that a northern Ireland baker should not have be forced to make a cake supporting gay marriage (in general). Before anyone throws their toys out the pram, I encourage you to look at the cake design first. It becomes a lot more obvious why the decision was made. Essentially it's no different to BrewDog saying that trump policies contradict their core values or Nike deciding they want Colin Kaepernick in their branding. My take on it is Actually I agree totally their shop their opinion and their right to refuse However I do think their opinion does need to be made blatantly clear and as it is blatantly clear it is open for comment x Their opinion is , Christiany thinks homosexuality is wrong and should not be condoned but condemned! So what do the good people of fab think of people Christian , Muslim , Buddhist atheist or whatever who think it is wrong , just as stealing is , think that two humans of the same sex want and do intimately pleasure each other x And are those good people happy that a doctrine of any description , or denomination actively and or openly tells and persuades good humans who wish to join or follow , that homosexuality is a bad thing that should be condemned and objected to including objecting to people who are trying to overcome the negative bias and opinion towards their chosen or not so chosen sexuality ? Xxx In a nutshell David Beckham quite rightly was NOT prosecuted for speeding As a lawyer illustrated the law , but he was speeding These Christians were quite rightly not convicted based upon the law But they still think homosexuals are wrong And I don't agree with like or support any narrow minded human with such views they are a negative influence on humanity and their vile backward opinions , free as they are to hold them should be confronted and contested every time they are spat xxx So what do you suggest then? Re education for people who do not agree with anyone who is LGBTQ ? They are entitled to thier view and belief as they do no harm to anyone! " No harm ? You're kidding me You are aware of how much violence has been enacted towards this group | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The key tenets of any religion boil down to "don't be a dick". The rest of it is just people, like these bakers being dicks. So much hypocrisy. S" Just for curiosity Would you consider preventing your r ped Daugher from having an abortion as being a Dick ? As if we observe religion world wide there's a bizarre correlation of religious belief and that particular opinion ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In a rare victory for common sense, the Supreme Court have agreed that a northern Ireland baker should not have be forced to make a cake supporting gay marriage (in general). Before anyone throws their toys out the pram, I encourage you to look at the cake design first. It becomes a lot more obvious why the decision was made. Essentially it's no different to BrewDog saying that trump policies contradict their core values or Nike deciding they want Colin Kaepernick in their branding. My take on it is Actually I agree totally their shop their opinion and their right to refuse However I do think their opinion does need to be made blatantly clear and as it is blatantly clear it is open for comment x Their opinion is , Christiany thinks homosexuality is wrong and should not be condoned but condemned! So what do the good people of fab think of people Christian , Muslim , Buddhist atheist or whatever who think it is wrong , just as stealing is , think that two humans of the same sex want and do intimately pleasure each other x And are those good people happy that a doctrine of any description , or denomination actively and or openly tells and persuades good humans who wish to join or follow , that homosexuality is a bad thing that should be condemned and objected to including objecting to people who are trying to overcome the negative bias and opinion towards their chosen or not so chosen sexuality ? Xxx In a nutshell David Beckham quite rightly was NOT prosecuted for speeding As a lawyer illustrated the law , but he was speeding These Christians were quite rightly not convicted based upon the law But they still think homosexuals are wrong And I don't agree with like or support any narrow minded human with such views they are a negative influence on humanity and their vile backward opinions , free as they are to hold them should be confronted and contested every time they are spat xxx So what do you suggest then? Re education for people who do not agree with anyone who is LGBTQ ? They are entitled to thier view and belief as they do no harm to anyone! No harm ? You're kidding me You are aware of how much violence has been enacted towards this group " It’s not the same thing at all | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The key tenets of any religion boil down to "don't be a dick". The rest of it is just people, like these bakers being dicks. So much hypocrisy. S Just for curiosity Would you consider preventing your r ped Daugher from having an abortion as being a Dick ? As if we observe religion world wide there's a bizarre correlation of religious belief and that particular opinion ? " Dick would be an understatement. My intended point is that the *key* tenets amount to 'don't be a dick'. The 'hate homosexuals', 'deny people control of their own bodies' and all the concomitant bullshit are just added on by controlling preachers and teachers. S | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In a rare victory for common sense, the Supreme Court have agreed that a northern Ireland baker should not have be forced to make a cake supporting gay marriage (in general). Before anyone throws their toys out the pram, I encourage you to look at the cake design first. It becomes a lot more obvious why the decision was made. Essentially it's no different to BrewDog saying that trump policies contradict their core values or Nike deciding they want Colin Kaepernick in their branding. " Bet they eat shrimp | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If it's that important..bake the xcake yourself..ffs..it's not rocket science..but then..it's nothing to do with a cake..is it.? " . No, it's about two groups of radicals inflicting they're beliefs on one another. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If it's that important..bake the xcake yourself..ffs..it's not rocket science..but then..it's nothing to do with a cake..is it.? . No, it's about two groups of radicals inflicting they're beliefs on one another." Well when you think about it the gay activist was the one doing the inflicting as he went to that shop because he j ew what was likely to happen | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In a rare victory for common sense, the Supreme Court have agreed that a northern Ireland baker should not have be forced to make a cake supporting gay marriage (in general). Before anyone throws their toys out the pram, I encourage you to look at the cake design first. It becomes a lot more obvious why the decision was made. Essentially it's no different to BrewDog saying that trump policies contradict their core values or Nike deciding they want Colin Kaepernick in their branding. My take on it is Actually I agree totally their shop their opinion and their right to refuse However I do think their opinion does need to be made blatantly clear and as it is blatantly clear it is open for comment x Their opinion is , Christiany thinks homosexuality is wrong and should not be condoned but condemned! So what do the good people of fab think of people Christian , Muslim , Buddhist atheist or whatever who think it is wrong , just as stealing is , think that two humans of the same sex want and do intimately pleasure each other x And are those good people happy that a doctrine of any description , or denomination actively and or openly tells and persuades good humans who wish to join or follow , that homosexuality is a bad thing that should be condemned and objected to including objecting to people who are trying to overcome the negative bias and opinion towards their chosen or not so chosen sexuality ? Xxx In a nutshell David Beckham quite rightly was NOT prosecuted for speeding As a lawyer illustrated the law , but he was speeding These Christians were quite rightly not convicted based upon the law But they still think homosexuals are wrong And I don't agree with like or support any narrow minded human with such views they are a negative influence on humanity and their vile backward opinions , free as they are to hold them should be confronted and contested every time they are spat xxx " This ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Supreme Court ruled. That nobody should be forced to do something against their beliefs " And what if your belief is not to serve any other race or religion other than your own.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Supreme Court ruled. That nobody should be forced to do something against their beliefs And what if your belief is not to serve any other race or religion other than your own...." The nearest salon to my house offering massage, won't serve men. Personally i don't want a massage from some who doesn't want to massage men. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The key tenets of any religion boil down to "don't be a dick". The rest of it is just people, like these bakers being dicks. So much hypocrisy. S Just for curiosity Would you consider preventing your r ped Daugher from having an abortion as being a Dick ? As if we observe religion world wide there's a bizarre correlation of religious belief and that particular opinion ? " Considering you proudly proclaimed your own knowledge against those who are "narrow minded", it's quite funny you don't understand the very clear logic of this correlation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Supreme Court ruled. That nobody should be forced to do something against their beliefs " My reading of the newspaper report was the decision was narrower than that. Because the case was about Human Rights the Supreme Court took a broad view. The decision as I read the report is that to be no-one could be made to express a view that went against their beliefs. Which in practice was the fundamental purpose of the test case. The decision makes sense on the basis that we live in a diverse society with many different beliefs. If you swapped the parties and had a gay baker and a homophobic customer wanting a cake with a statement supporting a homophobic group, you get the same result. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Supreme Court ruled. That nobody should be forced to do something against their beliefs My reading of the newspaper report was the decision was narrower than that. Because the case was about Human Rights the Supreme Court took a broad view. The decision as I read the report is that to be no-one could be made to express a view that went against their beliefs. Which in practice was the fundamental purpose of the test case. The decision makes sense on the basis that we live in a diverse society with many different beliefs. If you swapped the parties and had a gay baker and a homophobic customer wanting a cake with a statement supporting a homophobic group, you get the same result. " Sort of. The baker isn't against homosexual people. The baker is against gay marriage. Furthermore, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not teach that having same sex attraction is sinful. Only acts can be sinful in that context. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What flavour would it have been I wonder?" Fruit cake | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The only law regarding cakes should regarding the inclusion of carrots bananas or cheese. Imagine tricking someone into thinking they're gonna have a lovely cake then revealing it's got one of those in it, a perversion way above a bit of buggery. Anyway if anyone knows the whereabouts of cake bakers who are Jehovah's Witnesses, I'll be in need of a birthday cake in the next few weeks..." Carrot cakes and cheese cakes are amazing! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Supreme Court ruled. That nobody should be forced to do something against their beliefs My reading of the newspaper report was the decision was narrower than that. Because the case was about Human Rights the Supreme Court took a broad view. The decision as I read the report is that to be no-one could be made to express a view that went against their beliefs. Which in practice was the fundamental purpose of the test case. The decision makes sense on the basis that we live in a diverse society with many different beliefs. If you swapped the parties and had a gay baker and a homophobic customer wanting a cake with a statement supporting a homophobic group, you get the same result. Sort of. The baker isn't against homosexual people. The baker is against gay marriage. Furthermore, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not teach that having same sex attraction is sinful. Only acts can be sinful in that context. " It is a narrow distinction in theory that has the major effect in practice of discriminating against gay people. It is also a fairly recent theory which is a gloss to appear reasonable in a modern age. It effectively says you can be gay but don't do anything gay or ask to be treated as a heterosexual. Such a view is an unacceptable position. So although it is right that they should not be forced to express views that goes against their belief but opposition to gay marriage on the basis of religious belief is as wrong as the church used to be on divorce, the role of women in society the hierarchy of society, and the sun revolving around the earth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Supreme Court ruled. That nobody should be forced to do something against their beliefs My reading of the newspaper report was the decision was narrower than that. Because the case was about Human Rights the Supreme Court took a broad view. The decision as I read the report is that to be no-one could be made to express a view that went against their beliefs. Which in practice was the fundamental purpose of the test case. The decision makes sense on the basis that we live in a diverse society with many different beliefs. If you swapped the parties and had a gay baker and a homophobic customer wanting a cake with a statement supporting a homophobic group, you get the same result. Sort of. The baker isn't against homosexual people. The baker is against gay marriage. Furthermore, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not teach that having same sex attraction is sinful. Only acts can be sinful in that context. It is a narrow distinction in theory that has the major effect in practice of discriminating against gay people. It is also a fairly recent theory which is a gloss to appear reasonable in a modern age. It effectively says you can be gay but don't do anything gay or ask to be treated as a heterosexual. Such a view is an unacceptable position. So although it is right that they should not be forced to express views that goes against their belief but opposition to gay marriage on the basis of religious belief is as wrong as the church used to be on divorce, the role of women in society the hierarchy of society, and the sun revolving around the earth. " Thanks for clarifying that everyone who disagrees with you has wrong think. I'm just delighted we live in a society where the law upholds the right of individuals to think for themselves and not be told what their opinion must be, sorry you don't want to be a part of that. North Korea might suit your philosophy better. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Supreme Court ruled. That nobody should be forced to do something against their beliefs My reading of the newspaper report was the decision was narrower than that. Because the case was about Human Rights the Supreme Court took a broad view. The decision as I read the report is that to be no-one could be made to express a view that went against their beliefs. Which in practice was the fundamental purpose of the test case. The decision makes sense on the basis that we live in a diverse society with many different beliefs. If you swapped the parties and had a gay baker and a homophobic customer wanting a cake with a statement supporting a homophobic group, you get the same result. Sort of. The baker isn't against homosexual people. The baker is against gay marriage. Furthermore, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not teach that having same sex attraction is sinful. Only acts can be sinful in that context. It is a narrow distinction in theory that has the major effect in practice of discriminating against gay people. It is also a fairly recent theory which is a gloss to appear reasonable in a modern age. It effectively says you can be gay but don't do anything gay or ask to be treated as a heterosexual. Such a view is an unacceptable position. So although it is right that they should not be forced to express views that goes against their belief but opposition to gay marriage on the basis of religious belief is as wrong as the church used to be on divorce, the role of women in society the hierarchy of society, and the sun revolving around the earth. Thanks for clarifying that everyone who disagrees with you has wrong think. I'm just delighted we live in a society where the law upholds the right of individuals to think for themselves and not be told what their opinion must be, sorry you don't want to be a part of that. North Korea might suit your philosophy better. " Thanks for clarifying that a number of religious denominations think that homosexual people who practice their desire are sinful and considered worthy of condemnation xxx I wonder if you are one of them ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Supreme Court ruled. That nobody should be forced to do something against their beliefs My reading of the newspaper report was the decision was narrower than that. Because the case was about Human Rights the Supreme Court took a broad view. The decision as I read the report is that to be no-one could be made to express a view that went against their beliefs. Which in practice was the fundamental purpose of the test case. The decision makes sense on the basis that we live in a diverse society with many different beliefs. If you swapped the parties and had a gay baker and a homophobic customer wanting a cake with a statement supporting a homophobic group, you get the same result. Sort of. The baker isn't against homosexual people. The baker is against gay marriage. Furthermore, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not teach that having same sex attraction is sinful. Only acts can be sinful in that context. It is a narrow distinction in theory that has the major effect in practice of discriminating against gay people. It is also a fairly recent theory which is a gloss to appear reasonable in a modern age. It effectively says you can be gay but don't do anything gay or ask to be treated as a heterosexual. Such a view is an unacceptable position. So although it is right that they should not be forced to express views that goes against their belief but opposition to gay marriage on the basis of religious belief is as wrong as the church used to be on divorce, the role of women in society the hierarchy of society, and the sun revolving around the earth. Thanks for clarifying that everyone who disagrees with you has wrong think. I'm just delighted we live in a society where the law upholds the right of individuals to think for themselves and not be told what their opinion must be, sorry you don't want to be a part of that. North Korea might suit your philosophy better. Thanks for clarifying that a number of religious denominations think that homosexual people who practice their desire are sinful and considered worthy of condemnation xxx I wonder if you are one of them ?" Do you understand what sin is? It doesn't sound like it. Sin is irrelevant to someone who doesn't believe in God to start with, so why would it bother you - other than you need to police the thoughts of others. For someone who comments on religion a lot, you don't seem to understand it's philosophical roots at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"The Supreme Court ruled. That nobody should be forced to do something against their beliefs My reading of the newspaper report was the decision was narrower than that. Because the case was about Human Rights the Supreme Court took a broad view. The decision as I read the report is that to be no-one could be made to express a view that went against their beliefs. Which in practice was the fundamental purpose of the test case. The decision makes sense on the basis that we live in a diverse society with many different beliefs. If you swapped the parties and had a gay baker and a homophobic customer wanting a cake with a statement supporting a homophobic group, you get the same result. Sort of. The baker isn't against homosexual people. The baker is against gay marriage. Furthermore, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not teach that having same sex attraction is sinful. Only acts can be sinful in that context. It is a narrow distinction in theory that has the major effect in practice of discriminating against gay people. It is also a fairly recent theory which is a gloss to appear reasonable in a modern age. It effectively says you can be gay but don't do anything gay or ask to be treated as a heterosexual. Such a view is an unacceptable position. So although it is right that they should not be forced to express views that goes against their belief but opposition to gay marriage on the basis of religious belief is as wrong as the church used to be on divorce, the role of women in society the hierarchy of society, and the sun revolving around the earth. Thanks for clarifying that everyone who disagrees with you has wrong think. I'm just delighted we live in a society where the law upholds the right of individuals to think for themselves and not be told what their opinion must be, sorry you don't want to be a part of that. North Korea might suit your philosophy better. Thanks for clarifying that a number of religious denominations think that homosexual people who practice their desire are sinful and considered worthy of condemnation xxx I wonder if you are one of them ? Do you understand what sin is? It doesn't sound like it. Sin is irrelevant to someone who doesn't believe in God to start with, so why would it bother you - other than you need to police the thoughts of others. For someone who comments on religion a lot, you don't seem to understand it's philosophical roots at all. " I understand the impact of the concept and you avoided the question Regardless of philosophical roots the result is condemnation of homosexuality and the negative impacts this has on society Tell a human that the god they believe in is disdainful towards homosexuality and some feel they need to enforce that disdain express that disdain and perpetuate it Sometimes that manifests itself as the negative response of discrimination I don't want to police the thoughts of humans who condemn homosexuality , whatever their influence or motivation I actually just like racists don't want people who condemn homosexuals to hide I like them to be open so we know who they are I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts If a person has Nazi opinions , I want them to express them . However they are vile opinions and it is my freedom to articulate why such a viewpoint is vile and corrosive towards a cohesive peaceful socity If a doctrine advocates division between humans , such as a god telling it's believers to condemn homosexuality then it is reasonable to articulate why such a viewpoint is corrosive with regards harmonizing a peaceful accepting society Xxx And yet you do not answer with regards your opinions on homosexuality ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Supreme Court ruled. That nobody should be forced to do something against their beliefs My reading of the newspaper report was the decision was narrower than that. Because the case was about Human Rights the Supreme Court took a broad view. The decision as I read the report is that to be no-one could be made to express a view that went against their beliefs. Which in practice was the fundamental purpose of the test case. The decision makes sense on the basis that we live in a diverse society with many different beliefs. If you swapped the parties and had a gay baker and a homophobic customer wanting a cake with a statement supporting a homophobic group, you get the same result. Sort of. The baker isn't against homosexual people. The baker is against gay marriage. Furthermore, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not teach that having same sex attraction is sinful. Only acts can be sinful in that context. It is a narrow distinction in theory that has the major effect in practice of discriminating against gay people. It is also a fairly recent theory which is a gloss to appear reasonable in a modern age. It effectively says you can be gay but don't do anything gay or ask to be treated as a heterosexual. Such a view is an unacceptable position. So although it is right that they should not be forced to express views that goes against their belief but opposition to gay marriage on the basis of religious belief is as wrong as the church used to be on divorce, the role of women in society the hierarchy of society, and the sun revolving around the earth. Thanks for clarifying that everyone who disagrees with you has wrong think. I'm just delighted we live in a society where the law upholds the right of individuals to think for themselves and not be told what their opinion must be, sorry you don't want to be a part of that. North Korea might suit your philosophy better. Thanks for clarifying that a number of religious denominations think that homosexual people who practice their desire are sinful and considered worthy of condemnation xxx I wonder if you are one of them ? Do you understand what sin is? It doesn't sound like it. Sin is irrelevant to someone who doesn't believe in God to start with, so why would it bother you - other than you need to police the thoughts of others. For someone who comments on religion a lot, you don't seem to understand it's philosophical roots at all. I understand the impact of the concept " Does help if you understand the concept though. Better to debate terms you understand really. " and you avoided the question Regardless of philosophical roots the result is condemnation of homosexuality and the negative impacts this has on society Tell a human that the god they believe in is disdainful towards homosexuality and some feel they need to enforce that disdain express that disdain and perpetuate it Sometimes that manifests itself as the negative response of discrimination I don't want to police the thoughts of humans who condemn homosexuality , whatever their influence or motivation I actually just like racists don't want people who condemn homosexuals to hide I like them to be open so we know who they are I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts If a person has Nazi opinions , I want them to express them . However they are vile opinions and it is my freedom to articulate why such a viewpoint is vile and corrosive towards a cohesive peaceful socity If a doctrine advocates division between humans , such as a god telling it's believers to condemn homosexuality then it is reasonable to articulate why such a viewpoint is corrosive with regards harmonizing a peaceful accepting society Xxx And yet you do not answer with regards your opinions on homosexuality ? " If you don't understand the terms in your own question then there's no way I can answer it without us talking past each other. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Supreme Court ruled. That nobody should be forced to do something against their beliefs My reading of the newspaper report was the decision was narrower than that. Because the case was about Human Rights the Supreme Court took a broad view. The decision as I read the report is that to be no-one could be made to express a view that went against their beliefs. Which in practice was the fundamental purpose of the test case. The decision makes sense on the basis that we live in a diverse society with many different beliefs. If you swapped the parties and had a gay baker and a homophobic customer wanting a cake with a statement supporting a homophobic group, you get the same result. Sort of. The baker isn't against homosexual people. The baker is against gay marriage. Furthermore, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not teach that having same sex attraction is sinful. Only acts can be sinful in that context. It is a narrow distinction in theory that has the major effect in practice of discriminating against gay people. It is also a fairly recent theory which is a gloss to appear reasonable in a modern age. It effectively says you can be gay but don't do anything gay or ask to be treated as a heterosexual. Such a view is an unacceptable position. So although it is right that they should not be forced to express views that goes against their belief but opposition to gay marriage on the basis of religious belief is as wrong as the church used to be on divorce, the role of women in society the hierarchy of society, and the sun revolving around the earth. Thanks for clarifying that everyone who disagrees with you has wrong think. I'm just delighted we live in a society where the law upholds the right of individuals to think for themselves and not be told what their opinion must be, sorry you don't want to be a part of that. North Korea might suit your philosophy better. Thanks for clarifying that a number of religious denominations think that homosexual people who practice their desire are sinful and considered worthy of condemnation xxx I wonder if you are one of them ? Do you understand what sin is? It doesn't sound like it. Sin is irrelevant to someone who doesn't believe in God to start with, so why would it bother you - other than you need to police the thoughts of others. For someone who comments on religion a lot, you don't seem to understand it's philosophical roots at all. I understand the impact of the concept Does help if you understand the concept though. Better to debate terms you understand really. and you avoided the question Regardless of philosophical roots the result is condemnation of homosexuality and the negative impacts this has on society Tell a human that the god they believe in is disdainful towards homosexuality and some feel they need to enforce that disdain express that disdain and perpetuate it Sometimes that manifests itself as the negative response of discrimination I don't want to police the thoughts of humans who condemn homosexuality , whatever their influence or motivation I actually just like racists don't want people who condemn homosexuals to hide I like them to be open so we know who they are I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts If a person has Nazi opinions , I want them to express them . However they are vile opinions and it is my freedom to articulate why such a viewpoint is vile and corrosive towards a cohesive peaceful socity If a doctrine advocates division between humans , such as a god telling it's believers to condemn homosexuality then it is reasonable to articulate why such a viewpoint is corrosive with regards harmonizing a peaceful accepting society Xxx And yet you do not answer with regards your opinions on homosexuality ? If you don't understand the terms in your own question then there's no way I can answer it without us talking past each other." Nice of you to be condescending (that's talking down to someone ) However you have only said I don't understand without articulating any point I clearly illustrate I understand and you have not illustrated why in your opinion I do not | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Supreme Court ruled. That nobody should be forced to do something against their beliefs My reading of the newspaper report was the decision was narrower than that. Because the case was about Human Rights the Supreme Court took a broad view. The decision as I read the report is that to be no-one could be made to express a view that went against their beliefs. Which in practice was the fundamental purpose of the test case. The decision makes sense on the basis that we live in a diverse society with many different beliefs. If you swapped the parties and had a gay baker and a homophobic customer wanting a cake with a statement supporting a homophobic group, you get the same result. Sort of. The baker isn't against homosexual people. The baker is against gay marriage. Furthermore, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not teach that having same sex attraction is sinful. Only acts can be sinful in that context. It is a narrow distinction in theory that has the major effect in practice of discriminating against gay people. It is also a fairly recent theory which is a gloss to appear reasonable in a modern age. It effectively says you can be gay but don't do anything gay or ask to be treated as a heterosexual. Such a view is an unacceptable position. So although it is right that they should not be forced to express views that goes against their belief but opposition to gay marriage on the basis of religious belief is as wrong as the church used to be on divorce, the role of women in society the hierarchy of society, and the sun revolving around the earth. Thanks for clarifying that everyone who disagrees with you has wrong think. I'm just delighted we live in a society where the law upholds the right of individuals to think for themselves and not be told what their opinion must be, sorry you don't want to be a part of that. North Korea might suit your philosophy better. Thanks for clarifying that a number of religious denominations think that homosexual people who practice their desire are sinful and considered worthy of condemnation xxx I wonder if you are one of them ? Do you understand what sin is? It doesn't sound like it. Sin is irrelevant to someone who doesn't believe in God to start with, so why would it bother you - other than you need to police the thoughts of others. For someone who comments on religion a lot, you don't seem to understand it's philosophical roots at all. I understand the impact of the concept Does help if you understand the concept though. Better to debate terms you understand really. and you avoided the question Regardless of philosophical roots the result is condemnation of homosexuality and the negative impacts this has on society Tell a human that the god they believe in is disdainful towards homosexuality and some feel they need to enforce that disdain express that disdain and perpetuate it Sometimes that manifests itself as the negative response of discrimination I don't want to police the thoughts of humans who condemn homosexuality , whatever their influence or motivation I actually just like racists don't want people who condemn homosexuals to hide I like them to be open so we know who they are I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts If a person has Nazi opinions , I want them to express them . However they are vile opinions and it is my freedom to articulate why such a viewpoint is vile and corrosive towards a cohesive peaceful socity If a doctrine advocates division between humans , such as a god telling it's believers to condemn homosexuality then it is reasonable to articulate why such a viewpoint is corrosive with regards harmonizing a peaceful accepting society Xxx And yet you do not answer with regards your opinions on homosexuality ? If you don't understand the terms in your own question then there's no way I can answer it without us talking past each other. Nice of you to be condescending (that's talking down to someone ) However you have only said I don't understand without articulating any point I clearly illustrate I understand and you have not illustrated why in your opinion I do not " I asked you if you know what sin is. You dodged the question and said you knew the "impact" of the concept! You also said earlier that you don't understand the correlation between religious belief and abortion. So you haven't demonstrated any real understanding, but you've already reached your conclusion. Hence my point is that there's no point giving analysis to someone who doesn't have the knowledge but has already reached their conclusion! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this the cake that uses Bert & Ernie from Sesame Street? I don't honestly see how anyone could be offended by that design. It's not like they demanded a swastika-shaped cake, is it?" It was the writing on the cake. I don't know why they couldn't have had a 3 tier iced masterpiece with roses piped on it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this the cake that uses Bert & Ernie from Sesame Street? I don't honestly see how anyone could be offended by that design. It's not like they demanded a swastika-shaped cake, is it? It was the writing on the cake. I don't know why they couldn't have had a 3 tier iced masterpiece with roses piped on it. " And a groom and groom on top. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are going down if you suffer from any of the 7 original sins .I believe pride and hubris and lust and fornication will get a room down below .Thats you shafted OP. Luckily hell is such an outrageously stupid concept it could only be a human construct .. "You hope. The Bible gives a pretty good endorsement of private property rights so that's you fucked. Maybe we'll get a cell together and we can trade banter face to face instead on online. You can tell me all about that hot baby mama, I can draw my mental picture for you - we'll have a lot of time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this the cake that uses Bert & Ernie from Sesame Street? I don't honestly see how anyone could be offended by that design. It's not like they demanded a swastika-shaped cake, is it?" It had the words "Support Gay Marriage" very prominently on it. That is what the company objected to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this the cake that uses Bert & Ernie from Sesame Street? I don't honestly see how anyone could be offended by that design. It's not like they demanded a swastika-shaped cake, is it? It had the words "Support Gay Marriage" very prominently on it. That is what the company objected to. " And bert and Ernie are not gay and don't have an opinion on gay marriage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are you religious OP ? " Interesting you choose not to answer the easiest question on here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Supreme Court ruled. That nobody should be forced to do something against their beliefs My reading of the newspaper report was the decision was narrower than that. Because the case was about Human Rights the Supreme Court took a broad view. The decision as I read the report is that to be no-one could be made to express a view that went against their beliefs. Which in practice was the fundamental purpose of the test case. The decision makes sense on the basis that we live in a diverse society with many different beliefs. If you swapped the parties and had a gay baker and a homophobic customer wanting a cake with a statement supporting a homophobic group, you get the same result. Sort of. The baker isn't against homosexual people. The baker is against gay marriage. Furthermore, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not teach that having same sex attraction is sinful. Only acts can be sinful in that context. It is a narrow distinction in theory that has the major effect in practice of discriminating against gay people. It is also a fairly recent theory which is a gloss to appear reasonable in a modern age. It effectively says you can be gay but don't do anything gay or ask to be treated as a heterosexual. Such a view is an unacceptable position. So although it is right that they should not be forced to express views that goes against their belief but opposition to gay marriage on the basis of religious belief is as wrong as the church used to be on divorce, the role of women in society the hierarchy of society, and the sun revolving around the earth. Thanks for clarifying that everyone who disagrees with you has wrong think. I'm just delighted we live in a society where the law upholds the right of individuals to think for themselves and not be told what their opinion must be, sorry you don't want to be a part of that. North Korea might suit your philosophy better. Thanks for clarifying that a number of religious denominations think that homosexual people who practice their desire are sinful and considered worthy of condemnation xxx I wonder if you are one of them ? Do you understand what sin is? It doesn't sound like it. Sin is irrelevant to someone who doesn't believe in God to start with, so why would it bother you - other than you need to police the thoughts of others. For someone who comments on religion a lot, you don't seem to understand it's philosophical roots at all. I understand the impact of the concept Does help if you understand the concept though. Better to debate terms you understand really. and you avoided the question Regardless of philosophical roots the result is condemnation of homosexuality and the negative impacts this has on society Tell a human that the god they believe in is disdainful towards homosexuality and some feel they need to enforce that disdain express that disdain and perpetuate it Sometimes that manifests itself as the negative response of discrimination I don't want to police the thoughts of humans who condemn homosexuality , whatever their influence or motivation I actually just like racists don't want people who condemn homosexuals to hide I like them to be open so we know who they are I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts If a person has Nazi opinions , I want them to express them . However they are vile opinions and it is my freedom to articulate why such a viewpoint is vile and corrosive towards a cohesive peaceful socity If a doctrine advocates division between humans , such as a god telling it's believers to condemn homosexuality then it is reasonable to articulate why such a viewpoint is corrosive with regards harmonizing a peaceful accepting society Xxx And yet you do not answer with regards your opinions on homosexuality ? If you don't understand the terms in your own question then there's no way I can answer it without us talking past each other. Nice of you to be condescending (that's talking down to someone ) However you have only said I don't understand without articulating any point I clearly illustrate I understand and you have not illustrated why in your opinion I do not I asked you if you know what sin is. You dodged the question and said you knew the "impact" of the concept! You also said earlier that you don't understand the correlation between religious belief and abortion. So you haven't demonstrated any real understanding, but you've already reached your conclusion. Hence my point is that there's no point giving analysis to someone who doesn't have the knowledge but has already reached their conclusion! " Sin itself on one level can be is easily defined, its aplication is the problem as it is different depending on which branch of religion involving the Abrahamic tradition a person is a member. It therefore can become complicated to define on another level. It is therefore not a sensible question to ask someone 'what sin is?' without knowing which denomination and context the question is asked. The traditions of various Abrahamic beliefs in regard to the meaning of sin are as different as the practices in regard to sin and have been since the early Christian leaders that turned a minority religion into a state religion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
LOL. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A victory for justice and two fingers up to the trouble causing minorities. The term throwing the toys out of the pram is suitable for the childish and very annoying person wanting the cake. I might have told him to fuck off if it was my shop and he got cocky and stroppy like a baby.
LOL."Well, yes he kicked off after the refusal but he felt he was being discriminated against. Turns out he wasn't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts " Oh gosh I can't believe i missed this peach. Ummm yes it does mean that. That's exactly what it means. free speech, noun the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Yeah, you're not in favour of free speech at all!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are you religious OP ? Interesting you choose not to answer the easiest question on here." Haha, so selective lmfao | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Supreme Court ruled. That nobody should be forced to do something against their beliefs My reading of the newspaper report was the decision was narrower than that. Because the case was about Human Rights the Supreme Court took a broad view. The decision as I read the report is that to be no-one could be made to express a view that went against their beliefs. Which in practice was the fundamental purpose of the test case. The decision makes sense on the basis that we live in a diverse society with many different beliefs. If you swapped the parties and had a gay baker and a homophobic customer wanting a cake with a statement supporting a homophobic group, you get the same result. Sort of. The baker isn't against homosexual people. The baker is against gay marriage. Furthermore, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not teach that having same sex attraction is sinful. Only acts can be sinful in that context. It is a narrow distinction in theory that has the major effect in practice of discriminating against gay people. It is also a fairly recent theory which is a gloss to appear reasonable in a modern age. It effectively says you can be gay but don't do anything gay or ask to be treated as a heterosexual. Such a view is an unacceptable position. So although it is right that they should not be forced to express views that goes against their belief but opposition to gay marriage on the basis of religious belief is as wrong as the church used to be on divorce, the role of women in society the hierarchy of society, and the sun revolving around the earth. Thanks for clarifying that everyone who disagrees with you has wrong think. I'm just delighted we live in a society where the law upholds the right of individuals to think for themselves and not be told what their opinion must be, sorry you don't want to be a part of that. North Korea might suit your philosophy better. Thanks for clarifying that a number of religious denominations think that homosexual people who practice their desire are sinful and considered worthy of condemnation xxx I wonder if you are one of them ? Do you understand what sin is? It doesn't sound like it. Sin is irrelevant to someone who doesn't believe in God to start with, so why would it bother you - other than you need to police the thoughts of others. For someone who comments on religion a lot, you don't seem to understand it's philosophical roots at all. I understand the impact of the concept Does help if you understand the concept though. Better to debate terms you understand really. and you avoided the question Regardless of philosophical roots the result is condemnation of homosexuality and the negative impacts this has on society Tell a human that the god they believe in is disdainful towards homosexuality and some feel they need to enforce that disdain express that disdain and perpetuate it Sometimes that manifests itself as the negative response of discrimination I don't want to police the thoughts of humans who condemn homosexuality , whatever their influence or motivation I actually just like racists don't want people who condemn homosexuals to hide I like them to be open so we know who they are I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts If a person has Nazi opinions , I want them to express them . However they are vile opinions and it is my freedom to articulate why such a viewpoint is vile and corrosive towards a cohesive peaceful socity If a doctrine advocates division between humans , such as a god telling it's believers to condemn homosexuality then it is reasonable to articulate why such a viewpoint is corrosive with regards harmonizing a peaceful accepting society Xxx And yet you do not answer with regards your opinions on homosexuality ? If you don't understand the terms in your own question then there's no way I can answer it without us talking past each other. Nice of you to be condescending (that's talking down to someone ) However you have only said I don't understand without articulating any point I clearly illustrate I understand and you have not illustrated why in your opinion I do not I asked you if you know what sin is. You dodged the question and said you knew the "impact" of the concept! You also said earlier that you don't understand the correlation between religious belief and abortion. So you haven't demonstrated any real understanding, but you've already reached your conclusion. Hence my point is that there's no point giving analysis to someone who doesn't have the knowledge but has already reached their conclusion! Sin itself on one level can be is easily defined, its aplication is the problem as it is different depending on which branch of religion involving the Abrahamic tradition a person is a member. It therefore can become complicated to define on another level. It is therefore not a sensible question to ask someone 'what sin is?' without knowing which denomination and context the question is asked. The traditions of various Abrahamic beliefs in regard to the meaning of sin are as different as the practices in regard to sin and have been since the early Christian leaders that turned a minority religion into a state religion." I think people should at least be able to dispassionately and objectivly paraphrase the position they disagree with, before proclaiming a self appointed flawless victory. He just knows that gay marriage is good, now what was the question... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts Oh gosh I can't believe i missed this peach. Ummm yes it does mean that. That's exactly what it means. free speech, noun the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Yeah, you're not in favour of free speech at all!!! " No where have I advocated or do advocate either restraint (look up I clearly state I encourage it) or censorship Seems you have difficulty understanding English ? I said quite clearly All should be able to say and think what they like I have no idea in what language or dictionary contesting or debating the nature or whether the nature is vile or not ever equates to censorship or restraint It actively encourages the person to place their opinion on the table and discus the merit or impact of the opinions Just as I ask you your opinion upon the homosexuals practicing their desires If you think they should not I don't ask you to keep quiete (censorship) or not discuss it (restraint) on the contrary . Openly tell us It is not me suggesting censorship if I then replied with my opinion that yours is vile and unhelpful to a cohesive society . But as it would reflect you I would openly want the good people of the world to know thus I certainly do NOT want to censor or restrain putrid thoughts from anyone xxx Oh and on the subject of you just making stuff up and projecting it as another's opinion I see nowhere where I said I can't understand the correlation between religion and abortion I think I said As we observe religion world wide there's a bizarre correlation of religious belief and that particular opinion ? Which to most humans who understand English Would clearly mean I do understand the correlation ?
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Supreme Court ruled. That nobody should be forced to do something against their beliefs My reading of the newspaper report was the decision was narrower than that. Because the case was about Human Rights the Supreme Court took a broad view. The decision as I read the report is that to be no-one could be made to express a view that went against their beliefs. Which in practice was the fundamental purpose of the test case. The decision makes sense on the basis that we live in a diverse society with many different beliefs. If you swapped the parties and had a gay baker and a homophobic customer wanting a cake with a statement supporting a homophobic group, you get the same result. Sort of. The baker isn't against homosexual people. The baker is against gay marriage. Furthermore, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not teach that having same sex attraction is sinful. Only acts can be sinful in that context. It is a narrow distinction in theory that has the major effect in practice of discriminating against gay people. It is also a fairly recent theory which is a gloss to appear reasonable in a modern age. It effectively says you can be gay but don't do anything gay or ask to be treated as a heterosexual. Such a view is an unacceptable position. So although it is right that they should not be forced to express views that goes against their belief but opposition to gay marriage on the basis of religious belief is as wrong as the church used to be on divorce, the role of women in society the hierarchy of society, and the sun revolving around the earth. Thanks for clarifying that everyone who disagrees with you has wrong think. I'm just delighted we live in a society where the law upholds the right of individuals to think for themselves and not be told what their opinion must be, sorry you don't want to be a part of that. North Korea might suit your philosophy better. Thanks for clarifying that a number of religious denominations think that homosexual people who practice their desire are sinful and considered worthy of condemnation xxx I wonder if you are one of them ? Do you understand what sin is? It doesn't sound like it. Sin is irrelevant to someone who doesn't believe in God to start with, so why would it bother you - other than you need to police the thoughts of others. For someone who comments on religion a lot, you don't seem to understand it's philosophical roots at all. I understand the impact of the concept Does help if you understand the concept though. Better to debate terms you understand really. and you avoided the question Regardless of philosophical roots the result is condemnation of homosexuality and the negative impacts this has on society Tell a human that the god they believe in is disdainful towards homosexuality and some feel they need to enforce that disdain express that disdain and perpetuate it Sometimes that manifests itself as the negative response of discrimination I don't want to police the thoughts of humans who condemn homosexuality , whatever their influence or motivation I actually just like racists don't want people who condemn homosexuals to hide I like them to be open so we know who they are I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts If a person has Nazi opinions , I want them to express them . However they are vile opinions and it is my freedom to articulate why such a viewpoint is vile and corrosive towards a cohesive peaceful socity If a doctrine advocates division between humans , such as a god telling it's believers to condemn homosexuality then it is reasonable to articulate why such a viewpoint is corrosive with regards harmonizing a peaceful accepting society Xxx And yet you do not answer with regards your opinions on homosexuality ? If you don't understand the terms in your own question then there's no way I can answer it without us talking past each other. Nice of you to be condescending (that's talking down to someone ) However you have only said I don't understand without articulating any point I clearly illustrate I understand and you have not illustrated why in your opinion I do not I asked you if you know what sin is. You dodged the question and said you knew the "impact" of the concept! You also said earlier that you don't understand the correlation between religious belief and abortion. So you haven't demonstrated any real understanding, but you've already reached your conclusion. Hence my point is that there's no point giving analysis to someone who doesn't have the knowledge but has already reached their conclusion! Sin itself on one level can be is easily defined, its aplication is the problem as it is different depending on which branch of religion involving the Abrahamic tradition a person is a member. It therefore can become complicated to define on another level. It is therefore not a sensible question to ask someone 'what sin is?' without knowing which denomination and context the question is asked. The traditions of various Abrahamic beliefs in regard to the meaning of sin are as different as the practices in regard to sin and have been since the early Christian leaders that turned a minority religion into a state religion. I think people should at least be able to dispassionately and objectivly paraphrase the position they disagree with, before proclaiming a self appointed flawless victory. He just knows that gay marriage is good, now what was the question..." It seems that the dispassion and objectivity should only apply to those who are opposing religious values and not to those imposing religious values who allowed not to be objective or dispassionate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Supreme Court ruled. That nobody should be forced to do something against their beliefs My reading of the newspaper report was the decision was narrower than that. Because the case was about Human Rights the Supreme Court took a broad view. The decision as I read the report is that to be no-one could be made to express a view that went against their beliefs. Which in practice was the fundamental purpose of the test case. The decision makes sense on the basis that we live in a diverse society with many different beliefs. If you swapped the parties and had a gay baker and a homophobic customer wanting a cake with a statement supporting a homophobic group, you get the same result. Sort of. The baker isn't against homosexual people. The baker is against gay marriage. Furthermore, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not teach that having same sex attraction is sinful. Only acts can be sinful in that context. It is a narrow distinction in theory that has the major effect in practice of discriminating against gay people. It is also a fairly recent theory which is a gloss to appear reasonable in a modern age. It effectively says you can be gay but don't do anything gay or ask to be treated as a heterosexual. Such a view is an unacceptable position. So although it is right that they should not be forced to express views that goes against their belief but opposition to gay marriage on the basis of religious belief is as wrong as the church used to be on divorce, the role of women in society the hierarchy of society, and the sun revolving around the earth. Thanks for clarifying that everyone who disagrees with you has wrong think. I'm just delighted we live in a society where the law upholds the right of individuals to think for themselves and not be told what their opinion must be, sorry you don't want to be a part of that. North Korea might suit your philosophy better. Thanks for clarifying that a number of religious denominations think that homosexual people who practice their desire are sinful and considered worthy of condemnation xxx I wonder if you are one of them ? Do you understand what sin is? It doesn't sound like it. Sin is irrelevant to someone who doesn't believe in God to start with, so why would it bother you - other than you need to police the thoughts of others. For someone who comments on religion a lot, you don't seem to understand it's philosophical roots at all. I understand the impact of the concept Does help if you understand the concept though. Better to debate terms you understand really. and you avoided the question Regardless of philosophical roots the result is condemnation of homosexuality and the negative impacts this has on society Tell a human that the god they believe in is disdainful towards homosexuality and some feel they need to enforce that disdain express that disdain and perpetuate it Sometimes that manifests itself as the negative response of discrimination I don't want to police the thoughts of humans who condemn homosexuality , whatever their influence or motivation I actually just like racists don't want people who condemn homosexuals to hide I like them to be open so we know who they are I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts If a person has Nazi opinions , I want them to express them . However they are vile opinions and it is my freedom to articulate why such a viewpoint is vile and corrosive towards a cohesive peaceful socity If a doctrine advocates division between humans , such as a god telling it's believers to condemn homosexuality then it is reasonable to articulate why such a viewpoint is corrosive with regards harmonizing a peaceful accepting society Xxx And yet you do not answer with regards your opinions on homosexuality ? If you don't understand the terms in your own question then there's no way I can answer it without us talking past each other. Nice of you to be condescending (that's talking down to someone ) However you have only said I don't understand without articulating any point I clearly illustrate I understand and you have not illustrated why in your opinion I do not I asked you if you know what sin is. You dodged the question and said you knew the "impact" of the concept! You also said earlier that you don't understand the correlation between religious belief and abortion. So you haven't demonstrated any real understanding, but you've already reached your conclusion. Hence my point is that there's no point giving analysis to someone who doesn't have the knowledge but has already reached their conclusion! Sin itself on one level can be is easily defined, its aplication is the problem as it is different depending on which branch of religion involving the Abrahamic tradition a person is a member. It therefore can become complicated to define on another level. It is therefore not a sensible question to ask someone 'what sin is?' without knowing which denomination and context the question is asked. The traditions of various Abrahamic beliefs in regard to the meaning of sin are as different as the practices in regard to sin and have been since the early Christian leaders that turned a minority religion into a state religion. I think people should at least be able to dispassionately and objectivly paraphrase the position they disagree with, before proclaiming a self appointed flawless victory. He just knows that gay marriage is good, now what was the question..." Again you make things up I have nowhere even mentioned gay marriage , let alone I think it good Ironically as an atheist I think it pointless based upon an opinion I hear from many religions suggesting homosexuality is a sin 
I do however as our friend above illustrates most eloquently. That the good ole religious community cannot agree upon what sin is itself
I could articulate any number of versions and you would call me out telling me thats not the Christian one or not the one you agree with (usually without ever declaring the one you do , incase we objectively analyse its merit or lack there of?)
Thus I mentioned something tangible the effect of the belief of homosexuality being a sin , i.e. disapproval, disdain, open condemnation
I have clearly stated that my opinion is those who openly or not condemn homosexuality are not conducive to a harmonious society
I do not think they should be censored, not one bit,I think it should be clear that it can be articulated that their opinion is not one a kind open minded progressive person would want to hold
Just as I would say about the Nazi doctrine
If you hate Jewish or other groups please don't hide but you are not a nice person for holding that view, and don't want you to change ,just to be seen as vile ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Supreme Court ruled. That nobody should be forced to do something against their beliefs My reading of the newspaper report was the decision was narrower than that. Because the case was about Human Rights the Supreme Court took a broad view. The decision as I read the report is that to be no-one could be made to express a view that went against their beliefs. Which in practice was the fundamental purpose of the test case. The decision makes sense on the basis that we live in a diverse society with many different beliefs. If you swapped the parties and had a gay baker and a homophobic customer wanting a cake with a statement supporting a homophobic group, you get the same result. Sort of. The baker isn't against homosexual people. The baker is against gay marriage. Furthermore, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not teach that having same sex attraction is sinful. Only acts can be sinful in that context. It is a narrow distinction in theory that has the major effect in practice of discriminating against gay people. It is also a fairly recent theory which is a gloss to appear reasonable in a modern age. It effectively says you can be gay but don't do anything gay or ask to be treated as a heterosexual. Such a view is an unacceptable position. So although it is right that they should not be forced to express views that goes against their belief but opposition to gay marriage on the basis of religious belief is as wrong as the church used to be on divorce, the role of women in society the hierarchy of society, and the sun revolving around the earth. Thanks for clarifying that everyone who disagrees with you has wrong think. I'm just delighted we live in a society where the law upholds the right of individuals to think for themselves and not be told what their opinion must be, sorry you don't want to be a part of that. North Korea might suit your philosophy better. Thanks for clarifying that a number of religious denominations think that homosexual people who practice their desire are sinful and considered worthy of condemnation xxx I wonder if you are one of them ? Do you understand what sin is? It doesn't sound like it. Sin is irrelevant to someone who doesn't believe in God to start with, so why would it bother you - other than you need to police the thoughts of others. For someone who comments on religion a lot, you don't seem to understand it's philosophical roots at all. I understand the impact of the concept Does help if you understand the concept though. Better to debate terms you understand really. and you avoided the question Regardless of philosophical roots the result is condemnation of homosexuality and the negative impacts this has on society Tell a human that the god they believe in is disdainful towards homosexuality and some feel they need to enforce that disdain express that disdain and perpetuate it Sometimes that manifests itself as the negative response of discrimination I don't want to police the thoughts of humans who condemn homosexuality , whatever their influence or motivation I actually just like racists don't want people who condemn homosexuals to hide I like them to be open so we know who they are I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts If a person has Nazi opinions , I want them to express them . However they are vile opinions and it is my freedom to articulate why such a viewpoint is vile and corrosive towards a cohesive peaceful socity If a doctrine advocates division between humans , such as a god telling it's believers to condemn homosexuality then it is reasonable to articulate why such a viewpoint is corrosive with regards harmonizing a peaceful accepting society Xxx And yet you do not answer with regards your opinions on homosexuality ? If you don't understand the terms in your own question then there's no way I can answer it without us talking past each other. Nice of you to be condescending (that's talking down to someone ) However you have only said I don't understand without articulating any point I clearly illustrate I understand and you have not illustrated why in your opinion I do not I asked you if you know what sin is. You dodged the question and said you knew the "impact" of the concept! You also said earlier that you don't understand the correlation between religious belief and abortion. So you haven't demonstrated any real understanding, but you've already reached your conclusion. Hence my point is that there's no point giving analysis to someone who doesn't have the knowledge but has already reached their conclusion! Sin itself on one level can be is easily defined, its aplication is the problem as it is different depending on which branch of religion involving the Abrahamic tradition a person is a member. It therefore can become complicated to define on another level. It is therefore not a sensible question to ask someone 'what sin is?' without knowing which denomination and context the question is asked. The traditions of various Abrahamic beliefs in regard to the meaning of sin are as different as the practices in regard to sin and have been since the early Christian leaders that turned a minority religion into a state religion. I think people should at least be able to dispassionately and objectivly paraphrase the position they disagree with, before proclaiming a self appointed flawless victory. He just knows that gay marriage is good, now what was the question... It seems that the dispassion and objectivity should only apply to those who are opposing religious values and not to those imposing religious values who allowed not to be objective or dispassionate. "
It seems that way does it not
I think the irony has been lost somewhere | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts Oh gosh I can't believe i missed this peach. Ummm yes it does mean that. That's exactly what it means. free speech, noun the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Yeah, you're not in favour of free speech at all!!! No where have I advocated or do advocate either restraint (look up I clearly state I encourage it) or censorship Seems you have difficulty understanding English ? I said quite clearly All should be able to say and think what they like I have no idea in what language or dictionary contesting or debating the nature or whether the nature is vile or not ever equates to censorship or restraint It actively encourages the person to place their opinion on the table and discus the merit or impact of the opinions " No, you said you're justified to bring consequences to opinions you disagree with. So please tell us what form these consequences can take? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts Oh gosh I can't believe i missed this peach. Ummm yes it does mean that. That's exactly what it means. free speech, noun the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Yeah, you're not in favour of free speech at all!!! No where have I advocated or do advocate either restraint (look up I clearly state I encourage it) or censorship Seems you have difficulty understanding English ? I said quite clearly All should be able to say and think what they like I have no idea in what language or dictionary contesting or debating the nature or whether the nature is vile or not ever equates to censorship or restraint It actively encourages the person to place their opinion on the table and discus the merit or impact of the opinions Just as I ask you your opinion upon the homosexuals practicing their desires If you think they should not I don't ask you to keep quiete (censorship) or not discuss it (restraint) on the contrary . Openly tell us It is not me suggesting censorship if I then replied with my opinion that yours is vile and unhelpful to a cohesive society . But as it would reflect you I would openly want the good people of the world to know thus I certainly do NOT want to censor or restrain putrid thoughts from anyone xxx Oh and on the subject of you just making stuff up and projecting it as another's opinion I see nowhere where I said I can't understand the correlation between religion and abortion I think I said As we observe religion world wide there's a bizarre correlation of religious belief and that particular opinion ? Which to most humans who understand English Would clearly mean I do understand the correlation ?
"You wouldn't describe it as bizzare if you understood it. It's perfectly logical. I don't find it bizzare that atheism and communism correlate, it's perfectly logical if you understand the ideas behind them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts Oh gosh I can't believe i missed this peach. Ummm yes it does mean that. That's exactly what it means. free speech, noun the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Yeah, you're not in favour of free speech at all!!! No where have I advocated or do advocate either restraint (look up I clearly state I encourage it) or censorship Seems you have difficulty understanding English ? I said quite clearly All should be able to say and think what they like I have no idea in what language or dictionary contesting or debating the nature or whether the nature is vile or not ever equates to censorship or restraint It actively encourages the person to place their opinion on the table and discus the merit or impact of the opinions Just as I ask you your opinion upon the homosexuals practicing their desires If you think they should not I don't ask you to keep quiete (censorship) or not discuss it (restraint) on the contrary . Openly tell us It is not me suggesting censorship if I then replied with my opinion that yours is vile and unhelpful to a cohesive society . But as it would reflect you I would openly want the good people of the world to know thus I certainly do NOT want to censor or restrain putrid thoughts from anyone xxx Oh and on the subject of you just making stuff up and projecting it as another's opinion I see nowhere where I said I can't understand the correlation between religion and abortion I think I said As we observe religion world wide there's a bizarre correlation of religious belief and that particular opinion ? Which to most humans who understand English Would clearly mean I do understand the correlation ?
You wouldn't describe it as bizzare if you understood it. It's perfectly logical. I don't find it bizzare that atheism and communism correlate, it's perfectly logical if you understand the ideas behind them. "Ah I'm so sorry I was being facetious | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts Oh gosh I can't believe i missed this peach. Ummm yes it does mean that. That's exactly what it means. free speech, noun the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Yeah, you're not in favour of free speech at all!!! No where have I advocated or do advocate either restraint (look up I clearly state I encourage it) or censorship Seems you have difficulty understanding English ? I said quite clearly All should be able to say and think what they like I have no idea in what language or dictionary contesting or debating the nature or whether the nature is vile or not ever equates to censorship or restraint It actively encourages the person to place their opinion on the table and discus the merit or impact of the opinions Just as I ask you your opinion upon the homosexuals practicing their desires If you think they should not I don't ask you to keep quiete (censorship) or not discuss it (restraint) on the contrary . Openly tell us It is not me suggesting censorship if I then replied with my opinion that yours is vile and unhelpful to a cohesive society . But as it would reflect you I would openly want the good people of the world to know thus I certainly do NOT want to censor or restrain putrid thoughts from anyone xxx Oh and on the subject of you just making stuff up and projecting it as another's opinion I see nowhere where I said I can't understand the correlation between religion and abortion I think I said As we observe religion world wide there's a bizarre correlation of religious belief and that particular opinion ? Which to most humans who understand English Would clearly mean I do understand the correlation ?
You wouldn't describe it as bizzare if you understood it. It's perfectly logical. I don't find it bizzare that atheism and communism correlate, it's perfectly logical if you understand the ideas behind them.
Ah I'm so sorry I was being facetious "So you clearly understand I don't think it bizzare at all Some apologists like to suggest that negative opinions , for example anti abortion. Have nothing to do with religious doctrine or belief I was being sarcastic using one fact to illustrate the point | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts Oh gosh I can't believe i missed this peach. Ummm yes it does mean that. That's exactly what it means. free speech, noun the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Yeah, you're not in favour of free speech at all!!! No where have I advocated or do advocate either restraint (look up I clearly state I encourage it) or censorship Seems you have difficulty understanding English ? I said quite clearly All should be able to say and think what they like I have no idea in what language or dictionary contesting or debating the nature or whether the nature is vile or not ever equates to censorship or restraint It actively encourages the person to place their opinion on the table and discus the merit or impact of the opinions No, you said you're justified to bring consequences to opinions you disagree with. So please tell us what form these consequences can take? " I clearly have A return of critical words Just because you want my term consequences to mean more sadly it does not x Have the freedom to say what you like but that freedom does not extend to saying words without critical or logical analysis of those words And in the case of being anti homosexuality the conclusions with regard to the person holding them will be rather negative | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts Oh gosh I can't believe i missed this peach. Ummm yes it does mean that. That's exactly what it means. free speech, noun the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Yeah, you're not in favour of free speech at all!!! No where have I advocated or do advocate either restraint (look up I clearly state I encourage it) or censorship Seems you have difficulty understanding English ? I said quite clearly All should be able to say and think what they like I have no idea in what language or dictionary contesting or debating the nature or whether the nature is vile or not ever equates to censorship or restraint It actively encourages the person to place their opinion on the table and discus the merit or impact of the opinions No, you said you're justified to bring consequences to opinions you disagree with. So please tell us what form these consequences can take? I clearly have A return of critical words Just because you want my term consequences to mean more sadly it does not x Have the freedom to say what you like but that freedom does not extend to saying words without critical or logical analysis of those words And in the case of being anti homosexuality the conclusions with regard to the person holding them will be rather negative " That's it? That's the maximum consequence? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts Oh gosh I can't believe i missed this peach. Ummm yes it does mean that. That's exactly what it means. free speech, noun the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Yeah, you're not in favour of free speech at all!!! No where have I advocated or do advocate either restraint (look up I clearly state I encourage it) or censorship Seems you have difficulty understanding English ? I said quite clearly All should be able to say and think what they like I have no idea in what language or dictionary contesting or debating the nature or whether the nature is vile or not ever equates to censorship or restraint It actively encourages the person to place their opinion on the table and discus the merit or impact of the opinions No, you said you're justified to bring consequences to opinions you disagree with. So please tell us what form these consequences can take? I clearly have A return of critical words Just because you want my term consequences to mean more sadly it does not x Have the freedom to say what you like but that freedom does not extend to saying words without critical or logical analysis of those words And in the case of being anti homosexuality the conclusions with regard to the person holding them will be rather negative That's it? That's the maximum consequence? " I'll say again I'll vocally fight for the right of any human to hold any view and to vocally express it Holding that right does not mean that they are immune from comments upon that view or countering opinions that may try to articulate why the first view is vile or inhumane divisive or prejudgmental, offensive , discriminatory or a whole host of other words that suggest the person with the view is not a top notch member of society xxx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts Oh gosh I can't believe i missed this peach. Ummm yes it does mean that. That's exactly what it means. free speech, noun the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Yeah, you're not in favour of free speech at all!!! No where have I advocated or do advocate either restraint (look up I clearly state I encourage it) or censorship Seems you have difficulty understanding English ? I said quite clearly All should be able to say and think what they like I have no idea in what language or dictionary contesting or debating the nature or whether the nature is vile or not ever equates to censorship or restraint It actively encourages the person to place their opinion on the table and discus the merit or impact of the opinions No, you said you're justified to bring consequences to opinions you disagree with. So please tell us what form these consequences can take? I clearly have A return of critical words Just because you want my term consequences to mean more sadly it does not x Have the freedom to say what you like but that freedom does not extend to saying words without critical or logical analysis of those words And in the case of being anti homosexuality the conclusions with regard to the person holding them will be rather negative That's it? That's the maximum consequence? I'll say again I'll vocally fight for the right of any human to hold any view and to vocally express it Holding that right does not mean that they are immune from comments upon that view or countering opinions that may try to articulate why the first view is vile or inhumane divisive or prejudgmental, offensive , discriminatory or a whole host of other words that suggest the person with the view is not a top notch member of society xxx " Then I apologise because i mischaracterized your response. You may like to know that you used a phrase popular with groups who promote violence against people saying things they disagree with. So often consequences is a by word for violence. Free speech is free from violence. But since that was not how you meant it, I was wrong and apologise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm very much an advocate of free speech, however free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of their words or thoughts Oh gosh I can't believe i missed this peach. Ummm yes it does mean that. That's exactly what it means. free speech, noun the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Yeah, you're not in favour of free speech at all!!! No where have I advocated or do advocate either restraint (look up I clearly state I encourage it) or censorship Seems you have difficulty understanding English ? I said quite clearly All should be able to say and think what they like I have no idea in what language or dictionary contesting or debating the nature or whether the nature is vile or not ever equates to censorship or restraint It actively encourages the person to place their opinion on the table and discus the merit or impact of the opinions No, you said you're justified to bring consequences to opinions you disagree with. So please tell us what form these consequences can take? I clearly have A return of critical words Just because you want my term consequences to mean more sadly it does not x Have the freedom to say what you like but that freedom does not extend to saying words without critical or logical analysis of those words And in the case of being anti homosexuality the conclusions with regard to the person holding them will be rather negative That's it? That's the maximum consequence? I'll say again I'll vocally fight for the right of any human to hold any view and to vocally express it Holding that right does not mean that they are immune from comments upon that view or countering opinions that may try to articulate why the first view is vile or inhumane divisive or prejudgmental, offensive , discriminatory or a whole host of other words that suggest the person with the view is not a top notch member of society xxx Then I apologise because i mischaracterized your response. You may like to know that you used a phrase popular with groups who promote violence against people saying things they disagree with. So often consequences is a by word for violence. Free speech is free from violence. But since that was not how you meant it, I was wrong and apologise. " Apology gracefully accepted xxx Free speech must be free from violence But then I'm pretty much a pacifist | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the annoying trouble causing customer wanted his cake and to eat it too....bum bum. "If the customer has had to pay any of the legal costs it will make it the most expensive cake he has ever bought or should I say not bought! Should have gone else where like anyone else would have done.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On the plus side- we should now all be free to say and express what we want about jesus, buddha, mohammed, krishna and any other sky fairy without the god bothering brigade being able to have a paddy- on the grounds its against my athiest beliefs and principles as i think all religion is utter horse shit and shouldn't be imposed on the population as a whole in any way (although don't kill people and don't steal shit can stay as thats common sense really) "I've always viewed blasphemy as a victimless crime . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't see this as a victory for common sense - it's simply a methodology that bigots can use, so that they avoid legal complications. Whilst tieing-up the UK legal systems for some years (which could have been avoided), this ongoing issue has affected all citizens, of whatever sexual orientation and religious viewpoint. It thus seems an anti-social pursuit that's vindictive, along lines similar to using weasel-words, where they emphasise that they're really very happy to do business with gay people - but it's only about campaign messages on cakes. Most fair-minded people would accept that they'd a personal contract with their God, who alone would 'judge' them for their beliefs and behaviours - rather than pursue something so extensively through the legal system, using wily means to establish that they are not anti-gay etc, merely just happy to take gay customers' money for their services, in selected instances. The Supreme Court judgement doesn't really leave us with a perfectly clear position upon law, services and sexual orientation - so it's a bit of a mess from that perspective too. It's likely that more legal resources will be used in future, in order to more readily clarify laws in this area. Currently this cake has cost about half a million pounds "There wasn't even a cake for the 1/2 million! You can't go wrong with a flake cake! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't see this as a victory for common sense - it's simply a methodology that bigots can use, so that they avoid legal complications. Whilst tieing-up the UK legal systems for some years (which could have been avoided), this ongoing issue has affected all citizens, of whatever sexual orientation and religious viewpoint. It thus seems an anti-social pursuit that's vindictive, along lines similar to using weasel-words, where they emphasise that they're really very happy to do business with gay people - but it's only about campaign messages on cakes. Most fair-minded people would accept that they'd a personal contract with their God, who alone would 'judge' them for their beliefs and behaviours - rather than pursue something so extensively through the legal system, using wily means to establish that they are not anti-gay etc, merely just happy to take gay customers' money for their services, in selected instances. The Supreme Court judgement doesn't really leave us with a perfectly clear position upon law, services and sexual orientation - so it's a bit of a mess from that perspective too. It's likely that more legal resources will be used in future, in order to more readily clarify laws in this area. Currently this cake has cost about half a million pounds "So everyone who disagrees with your support for gay marriage is a bigot? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I believe in their right to choose who they undertake a business interraction with. However I do not believe, their reason on this, occasion was right. A possible analogy I would feel it was my right and right not to engage in a personal business interraction with a know and open racist (BNP member). But it would not be right for me to refuse to engage in transaction with a brexit supporter. However much I loathe brexit." He wasn't refusing to serve him though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't see this as a victory for common sense - it's simply a methodology that bigots can use, so that they avoid legal complications. Whilst tieing-up the UK legal systems for some years (which could have been avoided), this ongoing issue has affected all citizens, of whatever sexual orientation and religious viewpoint. It thus seems an anti-social pursuit that's vindictive, along lines similar to using weasel-words, where they emphasise that they're really very happy to do business with gay people - but it's only about campaign messages on cakes. Most fair-minded people would accept that they'd a personal contract with their God, who alone would 'judge' them for their beliefs and behaviours - rather than pursue something so extensively through the legal system, using wily means to establish that they are not anti-gay etc, merely just happy to take gay customers' money for their services, in selected instances. The Supreme Court judgement doesn't really leave us with a perfectly clear position upon law, services and sexual orientation - so it's a bit of a mess from that perspective too. It's likely that more legal resources will be used in future, in order to more readily clarify laws in this area. Currently this cake has cost about half a million pounds
So everyone who disagrees with your support for gay marriage is a bigot? "I don't know about you dude but I view homosexuality as a form of love. I doubt an omnipotent being would have such a narrow view on love . Isn't God love ,?? If you've picked a god that's against love then you've chosen poorly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't see this as a victory for common sense - it's simply a methodology that bigots can use, so that they avoid legal complications. Whilst tieing-up the UK legal systems for some years (which could have been avoided), this ongoing issue has affected all citizens, of whatever sexual orientation and religious viewpoint. It thus seems an anti-social pursuit that's vindictive, along lines similar to using weasel-words, where they emphasise that they're really very happy to do business with gay people - but it's only about campaign messages on cakes. Most fair-minded people would accept that they'd a personal contract with their God, who alone would 'judge' them for their beliefs and behaviours - rather than pursue something so extensively through the legal system, using wily means to establish that they are not anti-gay etc, merely just happy to take gay customers' money for their services, in selected instances. The Supreme Court judgement doesn't really leave us with a perfectly clear position upon law, services and sexual orientation - so it's a bit of a mess from that perspective too. It's likely that more legal resources will be used in future, in order to more readily clarify laws in this area. Currently this cake has cost about half a million pounds
So everyone who disagrees with your support for gay marriage is a bigot?
I don't know about you dude but I view homosexuality as a form of love.
I doubt an omnipotent being would have such a narrow view on love .
Isn't God love ,??
If you've picked a god that's against love then you've chosen poorly."If you seriously want an answer to that then you can PM me and I'll talk you through why every step of your logic is wrong. But only because it's you and frankly I don't have the willpower to educate the great unwashed with so many basic errors. I expect Kinkylondonpeople could explain most or all of them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"I don't see this as a victory for common sense - it's simply a methodology that bigots can use, so that they avoid legal complications. Whilst tieing-up the UK legal systems for some years (which could have been avoided), this ongoing issue has affected all citizens, of whatever sexual orientation and religious viewpoint. It thus seems an anti-social pursuit that's vindictive, along lines similar to using weasel-words, where they emphasise that they're really very happy to do business with gay people - but it's only about campaign messages on cakes. Most fair-minded people would accept that they'd a personal contract with their God, who alone would 'judge' them for their beliefs and behaviours - rather than pursue something so extensively through the legal system, using wily means to establish that they are not anti-gay etc, merely just happy to take gay customers' money for their services, in selected instances. The Supreme Court judgement doesn't really leave us with a perfectly clear position upon law, services and sexual orientation - so it's a bit of a mess from that perspective too. It's likely that more legal resources will be used in future, in order to more readily clarify laws in this area. Currently this cake has cost about half a million pounds
So everyone who disagrees with your support for gay marriage is a bigot?
I don't know about you dude but I view homosexuality as a form of love.
I doubt an omnipotent being would have such a narrow view on love .
Isn't God love ,??
If you've picked a god that's against love then you've chosen poorly.
If you seriously want an answer to that then you can PM me and I'll talk you through why every step of your logic is wrong. But only because it's you and frankly I don't have the willpower to educate the great unwashed with so many basic errors. I expect Kinkylondonpeople could explain most or all of them. "No pm, educate me as I agree with the gist Why would a loving god care about so called sexuality and whom lays with whom ? Bearing in mind that according to doctrine , so called god meticulously designed DNA and knew and knows exactly what will happen Thus if two humans have the DNA that means even though classed as the same sex they are pre disposed to desire each other , god designed that to happen So educate me why would a god advocate discrimination and disdain towards its very own design xxx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't see this as a victory for common sense - it's simply a methodology that bigots can use, so that they avoid legal complications. Whilst tieing-up the UK legal systems for some years (which could have been avoided), this ongoing issue has affected all citizens, of whatever sexual orientation and religious viewpoint. It thus seems an anti-social pursuit that's vindictive, along lines similar to using weasel-words, where they emphasise that they're really very happy to do business with gay people - but it's only about campaign messages on cakes. Most fair-minded people would accept that they'd a personal contract with their God, who alone would 'judge' them for their beliefs and behaviours - rather than pursue something so extensively through the legal system, using wily means to establish that they are not anti-gay etc, merely just happy to take gay customers' money for their services, in selected instances. The Supreme Court judgement doesn't really leave us with a perfectly clear position upon law, services and sexual orientation - so it's a bit of a mess from that perspective too. It's likely that more legal resources will be used in future, in order to more readily clarify laws in this area. Currently this cake has cost about half a million pounds
So everyone who disagrees with your support for gay marriage is a bigot?
I don't know about you dude but I view homosexuality as a form of love.
I doubt an omnipotent being would have such a narrow view on love .
Isn't God love ,??
If you've picked a god that's against love then you've chosen poorly.
If you seriously want an answer to that then you can PM me and I'll talk you through why every step of your logic is wrong. But only because it's you and frankly I don't have the willpower to educate the great unwashed with so many basic errors. I expect Kinkylondonpeople could explain most or all of them.
No pm, educate me as I agree with the gist
Why would a loving god care about so called sexuality and whom lays with whom ?
Bearing in mind that according to doctrine , so called god meticulously designed DNA and knew and knows exactly what will happen
Thus if two humans have the DNA that means even though classed as the same sex they are pre disposed to desire each other , god designed that to happen
So educate me why would a god advocate discrimination and disdain towards its very own design xxx"Or you could go ask a priest if you really give a shit and want to know. I mean churches up and down the country are virtually empty at the weekend but religion comes up in conversation with someone who isn't a trained in theology and suddenly everyone is interested  do you ask your postman for medical advice and ask your GP to deliver parcels for you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't see this as a victory for common sense - it's simply a methodology that bigots can use, so that they avoid legal complications. Whilst tieing-up the UK legal systems for some years (which could have been avoided), this ongoing issue has affected all citizens, of whatever sexual orientation and religious viewpoint. It thus seems an anti-social pursuit that's vindictive, along lines similar to using weasel-words, where they emphasise that they're really very happy to do business with gay people - but it's only about campaign messages on cakes. Most fair-minded people would accept that they'd a personal contract with their God, who alone would 'judge' them for their beliefs and behaviours - rather than pursue something so extensively through the legal system, using wily means to establish that they are not anti-gay etc, merely just happy to take gay customers' money for their services, in selected instances. The Supreme Court judgement doesn't really leave us with a perfectly clear position upon law, services and sexual orientation - so it's a bit of a mess from that perspective too. It's likely that more legal resources will be used in future, in order to more readily clarify laws in this area. Currently this cake has cost about half a million pounds
So everyone who disagrees with your support for gay marriage is a bigot?
I don't know about you dude but I view homosexuality as a form of love.
I doubt an omnipotent being would have such a narrow view on love .
Isn't God love ,??
If you've picked a god that's against love then you've chosen poorly.
If you seriously want an answer to that then you can PM me and I'll talk you through why every step of your logic is wrong. But only because it's you and frankly I don't have the willpower to educate the great unwashed with so many basic errors. I expect Kinkylondonpeople could explain most or all of them.
No pm, educate me as I agree with the gist
Why would a loving god care about so called sexuality and whom lays with whom ?
Bearing in mind that according to doctrine , so called god meticulously designed DNA and knew and knows exactly what will happen
Thus if two humans have the DNA that means even though classed as the same sex they are pre disposed to desire each other , god designed that to happen
So educate me why would a god advocate discrimination and disdain towards its very own design xxx
Or you could go ask a priest if you really give a shit and want to know. I mean churches up and down the country are virtually empty at the weekend but religion comes up in conversation with someone who isn't a trained in theology and suddenly everyone is interested do you ask your postman for medical advice and ask your GP to deliver parcels for you? "Or you could just say you don't know | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't see this as a victory for common sense - it's simply a methodology that bigots can use, so that they avoid legal complications. Whilst tieing-up the UK legal systems for some years (which could have been avoided), this ongoing issue has affected all citizens, of whatever sexual orientation and religious viewpoint. It thus seems an anti-social pursuit that's vindictive, along lines similar to using weasel-words, where they emphasise that they're really very happy to do business with gay people - but it's only about campaign messages on cakes. Most fair-minded people would accept that they'd a personal contract with their God, who alone would 'judge' them for their beliefs and behaviours - rather than pursue something so extensively through the legal system, using wily means to establish that they are not anti-gay etc, merely just happy to take gay customers' money for their services, in selected instances. The Supreme Court judgement doesn't really leave us with a perfectly clear position upon law, services and sexual orientation - so it's a bit of a mess from that perspective too. It's likely that more legal resources will be used in future, in order to more readily clarify laws in this area. Currently this cake has cost about half a million pounds
So everyone who disagrees with your support for gay marriage is a bigot?
I don't know about you dude but I view homosexuality as a form of love.
I doubt an omnipotent being would have such a narrow view on love .
Isn't God love ,??
If you've picked a god that's against love then you've chosen poorly.
If you seriously want an answer to that then you can PM me and I'll talk you through why every step of your logic is wrong. But only because it's you and frankly I don't have the willpower to educate the great unwashed with so many basic errors. I expect Kinkylondonpeople could explain most or all of them.
No pm, educate me as I agree with the gist
Why would a loving god care about so called sexuality and whom lays with whom ?
Bearing in mind that according to doctrine , so called god meticulously designed DNA and knew and knows exactly what will happen
Thus if two humans have the DNA that means even though classed as the same sex they are pre disposed to desire each other , god designed that to happen
So educate me why would a god advocate discrimination and disdain towards its very own design xxx
Or you could go ask a priest if you really give a shit and want to know. I mean churches up and down the country are virtually empty at the weekend but religion comes up in conversation with someone who isn't a trained in theology and suddenly everyone is interested do you ask your postman for medical advice and ask your GP to deliver parcels for you?
Or you could just say you don't know
"I do know. I made a private invite to Bobbangs, it wasn't a general invitation to anyone who fancies take up my time with questions easily answered elsewhere | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't see this as a victory for common sense - it's simply a methodology that bigots can use, so that they avoid legal complications. Whilst tieing-up the UK legal systems for some years (which could have been avoided), this ongoing issue has affected all citizens, of whatever sexual orientation and religious viewpoint. It thus seems an anti-social pursuit that's vindictive, along lines similar to using weasel-words, where they emphasise that they're really very happy to do business with gay people - but it's only about campaign messages on cakes. Most fair-minded people would accept that they'd a personal contract with their God, who alone would 'judge' them for their beliefs and behaviours - rather than pursue something so extensively through the legal system, using wily means to establish that they are not anti-gay etc, merely just happy to take gay customers' money for their services, in selected instances. The Supreme Court judgement doesn't really leave us with a perfectly clear position upon law, services and sexual orientation - so it's a bit of a mess from that perspective too. It's likely that more legal resources will be used in future, in order to more readily clarify laws in this area. Currently this cake has cost about half a million pounds
So everyone who disagrees with your support for gay marriage is a bigot?
I don't know about you dude but I view homosexuality as a form of love.
I doubt an omnipotent being would have such a narrow view on love .
Isn't God love ,??
If you've picked a god that's against love then you've chosen poorly.
If you seriously want an answer to that then you can PM me and I'll talk you through why every step of your logic is wrong. But only because it's you and frankly I don't have the willpower to educate the great unwashed with so many basic errors. I expect Kinkylondonpeople could explain most or all of them.
No pm, educate me as I agree with the gist
Why would a loving god care about so called sexuality and whom lays with whom ?
Bearing in mind that according to doctrine , so called god meticulously designed DNA and knew and knows exactly what will happen
Thus if two humans have the DNA that means even though classed as the same sex they are pre disposed to desire each other , god designed that to happen
So educate me why would a god advocate discrimination and disdain towards its very own design xxx
Or you could go ask a priest if you really give a shit and want to know. I mean churches up and down the country are virtually empty at the weekend but religion comes up in conversation with someone who isn't a trained in theology and suddenly everyone is interested do you ask your postman for medical advice and ask your GP to deliver parcels for you? "Oh and for all you know I'm an annoyance to a great number of priests ? Maybe I even went to alpha course and highlighted the poor logic there Maybe I already know your potential answers ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was the cake battenberg ?" No, it was a fairy cake | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't see this as a victory for common sense - it's simply a methodology that bigots can use, so that they avoid legal complications. Whilst tieing-up the UK legal systems for some years (which could have been avoided), this ongoing issue has affected all citizens, of whatever sexual orientation and religious viewpoint. It thus seems an anti-social pursuit that's vindictive, along lines similar to using weasel-words, where they emphasise that they're really very happy to do business with gay people - but it's only about campaign messages on cakes. Most fair-minded people would accept that they'd a personal contract with their God, who alone would 'judge' them for their beliefs and behaviours - rather than pursue something so extensively through the legal system, using wily means to establish that they are not anti-gay etc, merely just happy to take gay customers' money for their services, in selected instances. The Supreme Court judgement doesn't really leave us with a perfectly clear position upon law, services and sexual orientation - so it's a bit of a mess from that perspective too. It's likely that more legal resources will be used in future, in order to more readily clarify laws in this area. Currently this cake has cost about half a million pounds
So everyone who disagrees with your support for gay marriage is a bigot?
I don't know about you dude but I view homosexuality as a form of love.
I doubt an omnipotent being would have such a narrow view on love .
Isn't God love ,??
If you've picked a god that's against love then you've chosen poorly.
If you seriously want an answer to that then you can PM me and I'll talk you through why every step of your logic is wrong. But only because it's you and frankly I don't have the willpower to educate the great unwashed with so many basic errors. I expect Kinkylondonpeople could explain most or all of them.
No pm, educate me as I agree with the gist
Why would a loving god care about so called sexuality and whom lays with whom ?
Bearing in mind that according to doctrine , so called god meticulously designed DNA and knew and knows exactly what will happen
Thus if two humans have the DNA that means even though classed as the same sex they are pre disposed to desire each other , god designed that to happen
So educate me why would a god advocate discrimination and disdain towards its very own design xxx
Or you could go ask a priest if you really give a shit and want to know. I mean churches up and down the country are virtually empty at the weekend but religion comes up in conversation with someone who isn't a trained in theology and suddenly everyone is interested do you ask your postman for medical advice and ask your GP to deliver parcels for you?
Or you could just say you don't know
I do know. I made a private invite to Bobbangs, it wasn't a general invitation to anyone who fancies take up my time with questions easily answered elsewhere "And maybe I don't want private maybe I believe in free speech and no censorship and feel your opinion whatever it's basis is worth sharing with the forum Xxx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I may be wrong on this so shoot me down if i am. If i go into a bakery and ask them to decorate a cake with, hmmm, i dont know, "Hitler was a cool guy" written on it. The bakery decline my order. Does anybody havr an issue with this. Now if I was a neo nazi dickhead would i sue the bakery or find someone else to make it or would i make the cake myself. The bakery does not support gay marriage. In Northern Ireland it is still illegal. So perfectly within their rights to make and bake whatever they choose. And before anyone starts i am in no way comparing gay rights activists, gay people, or anybody else for that matter too neonazis. It is thier business and they can make and decorate what they choose too. If anybofy dislikes that take your business elsewhere. Am i missing the point on this? " Exactly if it was about a cake, the customer would have told the baker to stick his cake where the sun don't shine and gone elsewhere!Makes me wonder if he knew they would refuse the order once they saw the message. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
