Cable Forum - View Single Post - Bakers who refused to make 'gay cake' say they felt 'victimised'

**Chris** · 25-10-2016, 09:35

Oddly enough, that well known conservative gay-hater Peter Tatchell thinks this judgment is unfair.

The bakers argued that they did not refuse service based on the customer's sexuality, but because they wished not to associate with his political campaign to redefine legal marriage in Northern Ireland. They argued that had he just wanted any cake, they would have happily served him.

This isn't the same as the Christian B&B owners who refused to sell a gay couple a double room because they were not a married, heterosexual couple. In that case, their refusal of service was clearly discrimination due to sexuality, which is against the law.

The appeal court has concluded that the law as it stands is against the actions of the bakers. If that is the case, only legislation can now change the situation. Clearly there are some veteran equality campaigners who now say the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction; that equality and free speech for everyone under the law cannot be used as a motive for inhibiting conscience.

A line has to be drawn somewhere, between treating each other fairly and not compelling each other to act against conscience. Exactly where that line should be .... well, discuss ...

25-10-2016, 09:35	#7
Chris Trollsplatter Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: North of Watford Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests Posts: 38,134	Re: Bakers who refused to make 'gay cake' say they felt 'victimised' Oddly enough, that well known conservative gay-hater Peter Tatchell thinks this judgment is unfair. The bakers argued that they did not refuse service based on the customer's sexuality, but because they wished not to associate with his political campaign to redefine legal marriage in Northern Ireland. They argued that had he just wanted any cake, they would have happily served him. This isn't the same as the Christian B&B owners who refused to sell a gay couple a double room because they were not a married, heterosexual couple. In that case, their refusal of service was clearly discrimination due to sexuality, which is against the law. The appeal court has concluded that the law as it stands is against the actions of the bakers. If that is the case, only legislation can now change the situation. Clearly there are some veteran equality campaigners who now say the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction; that equality and free speech for everyone under the law cannot be used as a motive for inhibiting conscience. A line has to be drawn somewhere, between treating each other fairly and not compelling each other to act against conscience. Exactly where that line should be .... well, discuss ...