SO16_Saint Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 Were they right to not make the cake or wrong? Thoughts? Is this a n example of why religion / faith is a bad and dangerous thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 Surely everyone is within their rights to turn down work. They shouldnt (and ideally wouldnt) have to give a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SO16_Saint Posted 19 May, 2015 Author Share Posted 19 May, 2015 You're right. But. They used 'their faith' as the reason. That being the case, and Deuteronomy 17:8-13 saying that you shouldn't ignore the judgement of a judge or priest, they should now make said cake? Or do you only use 'faith' as the crutch when it benefits your argument? *you may 'get' that I'm not religious, btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 You're right. But. They used 'their faith' as the reason. That being the case, and Deuteronomy 17:8-13 saying that you shouldn't ignore the judgement of a judge or priest, they should now make said cake? Or do you only use 'faith' as the crutch when it benefits your argument? *you may 'get' that I'm not religious, btw Im not religious either, but it seems to me to be a legitimate 'right' to believe homosexuality / adultery / sex before marriage etc is wrong as long as you dont persecute those people who believe and act differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SO16_Saint Posted 19 May, 2015 Author Share Posted 19 May, 2015 Im not religious either, but it seems to me to be a legitimate 'right' to believe homosexuality / adultery / sex before marriage etc is wrong as long as you dont persecute those people who believe and act differently. But would not making the cake be deemed as persecution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the saint in winchester Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 Deut 17 is part of the Mosaic Law given to Israel, not binding on Christians. Israelite society was patriarchal and matters were judged by the priest. The Mosaic Law was completed with the life, death and ransom sacrifice of Jesus. You might want to try ROMANS 1:26,27 as part of the Christian code. What is acceptable is judged by Christ and by God. Could you accept the word of a priest today as a moral compass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 But would not making the cake be deemed as persecution? Maybe in law but not for me. There is a difference imo between discrimination restricting someone's access to employment, housing, medical care on a corporate level and between choosing which clients you take on as a service provider. I know professionals who discriminate on all kinds of grounds - a masseuse who wont see men, an accountant who wont take on landlords, it just doesnt end up in the media / courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 I think it is fair that any company should be able to choose who they will or will not serve. However, in order to save the embarrassment and sensibilities of the unknowing public, these discriminations should be prominently displayed on the door of the premises and in all advertising. eg: We reserve the right to refuse to serve people with no shirt, no shoes, or homosexuals. If they are going to discriminate, it's only fair to give a warning that everyone can see. If they really want to discriminate like this, then they should also be prepared to lose other custom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the saint in winchester Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 I think it is fair that any company should be able to choose who they will or will not serve. However, in order to save the embarrassment and sensibilities of the unknowing public, these discriminations should be prominently displayed on the door of the premises and in all advertising. eg: We reserve the right to refuse to serve people with no shirt, no shoes, or homosexuals. If they are going to discriminate, it's only fair to give a warning that everyone can see. Well, I agree with your first line, Ohio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 Well, I agree with your first line, Ohio. But you disagree with full disclosure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the saint in winchester Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 Surely everyone is within their rights to turn down work. They shouldnt (and ideally wouldnt) have to give a reason. Agree. If Window Cleaner took a call asking him to clean the window at a mosque*, should he be allowed to accept or decline .... or should he be made to clean them, as it would be intolerance or prejudice not to do them. Surely he should be allowed to accept or reject the work? * Consider your answers for brothel, masonic hall, BNP meeting hall etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the saint in winchester Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 Agree. If Window Cleaner took a call asking him to clean the window at a mosque*, should he be allowed to accept or decline .... or should he be made to clean them, as it would be intolerance or prejudice not to do them. Surely he should be allowed to accept or reject the work? * Consider your answers for brothel, masonic hall, BNP meeting hall etc. Think I am quoting myself now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 (edited) Agree. If Window Cleaner took a call asking him to clean the window at a mosque*, should he be allowed to accept or decline .... or should he be made to clean them, as it would be intolerance or prejudice not to do them. Surely he should be allowed to accept or reject the work? * Consider your answers for brothel, masonic hall, BNP meeting hall etc. If his advertising clearly stated that he would refuse Islamic customers, then the problem would be less likely to arise. This would save the window cleaner time and effort, and save the embarrassment and wasted effort of the mosque. It's really that simple. No shirt No shoes No gays No jews No Arabs etc: Edited 19 May, 2015 by Ohio Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 Deut 17 is part of the Mosaic Law given to Israel, not binding on Christians. Israelite society was patriarchal and matters were judged by the priest. The Mosaic Law was completed with the life, death and ransom sacrifice of Jesus. You might want to try ROMANS 1:26,27 as part of the Christian code. What is acceptable is judged by Christ and by God. Could you accept the word of a priest today as a moral compass? To Catholics, God and Jesus are one and the same, so which Christian sects are secular law to be based on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the saint in winchester Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 If his advertising clearly stated that he would refuse Islamic customers, then the problem would be less likely to arise. This would save the window cleaner time and effort, and save the embarrassment and wasted effort of the mosque. It's really that simple. No shirt No shoes No gays No jews No Arabs etc: OK, you're making me laugh out loud in the office and I am attracting attention, so this is my last post on this .... he shouldn't need to post an exhaustive list of those he would rather not serve. It's his personal internal choice when a prospective customer calls asking for his services, he will ask questions and decide whether or not to quote for the work. He doesn't have to give an explanation. In this case, it seems the bakery's honest explanation of the reason why he would rather not bake a cake with a gay-supporting slogan that has landed him in trouble. He would have been better off not expressing his views. A simple "thanks for your call, but we're not in a position to help on this" would have been sufficient. That would have allowed the caller to move on to another cake-maker. Another example of "keep your views to yourseld, don't express them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 I think it is fair that any company should be able to choose who they will or will not serve. However, in order to save the embarrassment and sensibilities of the unknowing public, these discriminations should be prominently displayed on the door of the premises and in all advertising. eg: We reserve the right to refuse to serve people with no shirt, no shoes, or homosexuals. If they are going to discriminate, it's only fair to give a warning that everyone can see. If they really want to discriminate like this, then they should also be prepared to lose other custom. Except that the bakery in question are happy to serve homosexuals. It was the narrative they wanted on the cake that they objected to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the saint in winchester Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 To Catholics, God and Jesus are one and the same, so which Christian sects are secular law to be based on? Then they need to read their Bible better .... secular law is not based on any brand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucks Saint Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 Except that the bakery in question are happy to serve homosexuals. It was the narrative they wanted on the cake that they objected to. Where does this end? Must bakeries make any cake that has any narrative, provided it is legal to express that narrative? So "all policemen / judges / nurses are brutal evil incarnations of the devil that have nothing but your destruction as their aim" for example. Though I am not sure which activist group might take that one to court, or which group might fund it. Plus it would need a big cake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 (edited) It's not like the slogan "Support gay marriage" is in any way obscene, inflammatory or an incitement to riot. It is simply a subject matter that the bakers have an objection with. With that in mind, I honestly think they should disclose this, and any other obvious bias in order to save the embarrassment and time of their prospective clients. Cases like these are rife in the US. They are usually accompanied by a LOT more douchebaggery on both sides than I have seen in this particular story, so my opinion will have been tainted by what I have seen in US culture. Edited 19 May, 2015 by Ohio Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 I think a lot of people hide behind the bible to disguise personal prejudices. Not all, but many. There's more in the bible saying that you should never eat shellfish than there is about not being gay, would they have refused something that condoned eating prawns? I doubt it, there's a reason why the anti-gay bits in the bible get mentioned so far out of proportion and it's simply homophobia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 I think a lot of people hide behind the bible to disguise personal prejudices. Not all, but many. There's more in the bible saying that you should never eat shellfish than there is about not being gay, would they have refused something that condoned eating prawns? I doubt it, there's a reason why the anti-gay bits in the bible get mentioned so far out of proportion and it's simply homophobia. High Press Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 I wonder if the local Muslim bakers will bake me a nice cake with Mohammed on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 secular law is not based on any brand. It was a trick question. I suspect they would have refused to bake a cake with that slogan too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 I find gay cake to a bit sickly and heavy. I think they pack too much fudge into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 I wonder if the local Muslim bakers will bake me a nice cake with Mohammed on it? I'm guessing not. Even despite being an obvious flame that even a judge could spot a mile off, they should be displaying a disclaimer about the boundaries of religious content if they are that way inclined. The UK is largely a secular country, and should not be subject to the whims and bigotry of whatever religion sees itself as above the good of it's citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 I find gay cake to a bit sickly and heavy. I think they pack too much fudge into it. Maybe too much fudge, yeah. But I have to admit, I do like to lick the cream around the rim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 19 May, 2015 Share Posted 19 May, 2015 That is got to court in the first place is madness. Gay couple want religious Baker couple to put pro-Gay slogan on cake, they find this a bit much and request that the customer choose something else. Gay couple sue bakers.... What utter ********. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoPints Posted 20 May, 2015 Share Posted 20 May, 2015 I find gay cake to a bit sickly and heavy. I think they pack too much fudge into it. Lol [emoji3] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 20 May, 2015 Share Posted 20 May, 2015 That is got to court in the first place is madness. Gay couple want religious Baker couple to put pro-Gay slogan on cake, they find this a bit much and request that the customer choose something else. Gay couple sue bakers.... What utter ********. Spot on, common sense (as ever) has gone out of the window ! The baker should have quoted £200 for a £50 cake (or whatever!) and the gay guys should have just gone elsewhere ! Taking the issue to court does nobody any good and the average taxpayer gets p!ssed off because there is always a cost for no reason ! Sensible, normal people do not get involved in these things and the whole thing leaves a bad taste all round IMHO ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hokie Posted 20 May, 2015 Share Posted 20 May, 2015 No one is asking the bakers to enter into a gay marriage, or engage in homosexuality. (Which I would be against. I'd be the first with the sign at the protest saying, "No forced buggery against Christian bakers.") Does their religion prohibit homosexuality for those in the faith, or homosexuality for everyone? I have no problem with people practicing their faith. I have a problem with people who expect me to practice their faith. (No, I am not gay, but I do a number of things that would bother priest and mullah alike.) Without researching this case, I believe the baker is not, in fact, an individual baker, but in fact some form of legal entity recognized by the government. Beyond the question of whether or not a corporate entity can be "Christian", (was it baptized?) I do expect that such an entity not discriminate in exchange for the legal protections that forming such an entity provides. An individual has the right, in my mind to discriminate on the basis of religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. A corporation does not. The bottom line to me is that the refusal was clearly discriminatory against a group of people who have suffered from their identity. (Such discrimination including loss of employment, physical assault--including death, and not too far past, incarceration.) I think I could be persuaded otherwise if the baker, in court, produced evidence of refusing business related to a wide variety of behavior/messages regarding things that their faith proscribes. This to me, on its face, seems politically discriminatory rather than religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now