Bakers who refused to make 'gay cake' say they felt 'victimised'

Originally Posted by Angua

If people were prevented from following a particular religion, I would be up there protesting. Whilst that belief for some may be indoctrinated from birth and sincerely held, as an adult, there is always the choice to act as your humanity dictates rather than as a book dictates.

I find your attitude towards people having faiths and sticking by them, totally disrespectful.

You go on about “humanity”, but totally throw that out of the window, during a humans first existence when they are in the womb, describing them previously as a “parasite”. What a cold hearted description of a humans becoming of life.

Also, it is by far irrelevant to apply the “humanity” element in this case, given the Supreme Courts ruling that, the Bakers refusal to bake the cake, was not discriminatory and that the Baker had a lawful right to refuse service.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Mick

I find your attitude towards people having faiths and sticking by them, totally disrespectful.

You go on about “humanity”, but totally throw that out of the window, during a humans first existence when they are in the womb, describing them previously as a “parasite”. What a cold hearted description of a humans becoming of life.

Also, it is by far irrelevant to apply the “humanity” element in this case, given the Supreme Courts ruling that, the Bakers refusal to bake the cake, was not discriminatory and that the Baker had a lawful right to refuse service.

Ah so scientifically accurate terms are now verboten.

[Mr K]

There must be some more important news than this this going on , surely ! The cake is now past its sell by date anyway ....

Originally Posted by Mr K

There must be some more important news than this this going on , surely ! The cake is now past its sell by date anyway ....

Ah you mean Strictly Come Dancing I presume?

However if CF members want to discuss this then this is the place to do it.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I know what I said, Seph, and I should have made it clear that this applies only if the item is actually sold. Hopefully, that clarifies my clarification.

Depends on what you class as sold. For most online purchases, a contract is only formed once it has been dispatched. So if it hasn't been dispatched and you were charged the lower amount, the company can take that money back and not send the product. So sold in this instance doesn't mean money taken were in a shop it would.

Originally Posted by Angua

Ah so scientifically accurate terms are now verboten.

Well ?

Where is the "Humanity", you speak of, in calling a Fetus a "Parasite" ?

In your case, "Humanity" exists, only when a suits.

[Mr K]

Talk about making a mountain out of a m̶o̶l̶e̶ ̶h̶i̶l̶l̶ cake

Originally Posted by Mr K

Talk about making a mountain out of a m̶o̶l̶e̶ ̶h̶i̶l̶l̶ cake

If you have nothing to add to the debate - stay the hell out of it.

Maggy gave you a kind hint earlier.

Now you are being told.

Originally Posted by Angua

I just realised a long time ago there is no god.

However, I understand many people need that belief and the fellowship they get from religion. Having deeply and sincerely held views.

What I do not agree with, is the use of that religious belief to treat people differently or less favourably. Societal expectations are just as bad, with such as a caste system holding people unfairly as somehow lesser.

The idea that people who love one another should not be allowed to legally marry based on a book, or campaign to have that marriage accepted when it genuinely harms no one, I have great difficulty with.

The use of belief as reason to treat someone less favourably because of a political view, whilst agreed by the Supreme Court, also feels morally wrong.

In this case tit for tat has already started.

I’m sure Tony Xu didn’t consider the publicity angle in any way shape or form before announcing to the papers that he was withholding the Ashers’ photos. Unlike the Ashers themselves, who did not seek publicity for their actions.

I seriously doubt this is about to become a major social problem.

Also ... however much difficulty you have with people who disagree with same-sex marriage, you don’t have the right to force them to participate in its advocacy.

The price of that is that some people will refuse to do things for other people. As I said, I doubt this decision is about to cause massive social rucktions, however it is just possible that it might cause activists to think twice before trying to provoke people into doing things they can then be taken to court for.

[tweetiepooh]

Good result - it should never have been taken this far. Too often people of all sorts take offence far too easily at it is decaying many freedoms that were fought for.

And things are usually very one sided. And it's "my" freedoms that are being denied.

From my point of view it seems (my) faith can be criticised but anything that opposes (my) faith is freedom not to be denied.

Originally Posted by Chris

I’m sure Tony Xu didn’t consider the publicity angle in any way shape or form before announcing to the papers that he was withholding the Ashers’ photos. Unlike the Ashers themselves, who did not seek publicity for their actions.

I seriously doubt this is about to become a major social problem.

Also ... however much difficulty you have with people who disagree with same-sex marriage, you don’t have the right to force them to participate in its advocacy.

The price of that is that some people will refuse to do things for other people. As I said, I doubt this decision is about to cause massive social rucktions, however it is just possible that it might cause activists to think twice before trying to provoke people into doing things they can then be taken to court for.

Succinctly put Chris.

I think the issue in this case is a classic example of "Over Expectation".

Gay rights have, quite rightly, grown over the years and that is and always will be welcome in an equal society, "equal", being the buzz word, but I think some people, not all, in the LGBT Community have got ahead of themselves and think they have been given more rights over non-LGBT folk and that they can have some kind of hold over them, by playing the prejudice card.

[Mr K]

If the bakers refused to put 'Manchester United' on the cake (quite justifiably imho ), do you think that's ok ?

The answer is simple..Just take your custom somewhere else. Unless you are out to pick on those who don't have the same view as you. Just how many Cakegates have there been in the last couple of years? It's becoming tedious.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

The answer is simple..Just take your custom somewhere else. Unless you are out to pick on those who don't have the same view as you. Just how many Cakegates have there been in the last couple of years? It's becoming tedious.

What happens when there is no alternative within a reasonable distance?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Angua

What happens when there is no alternative within a reasonable distance?

Don't eat cake .

---------- Post added at 14:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:28 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

If the bakers refused to put 'Manchester United' on the cake (quite justifiably imho ), do you think that's ok ?

On the Jeremy vine show yesterday a caller suggested going to Morrison as they will scan any picture and put it on a cake .