Ashers Baking Company in Ireland was found guilty of discrimination for refusing to make a cake for a local gay activist. It was to mark the election of the first openly gay mayor in Northern Ireland, Andrew Muir. They explained it was in conflict with their religious beliefs. I staunchly believe that no one should be compelled to do things they aren't comfortable doing. If someone would not serve me because they didn't agree with me, I'd move onto the next bakery and not have a cry to some court.
Many complain of Christians shoving their beliefs down the throats of non believers. They protest against prayer being taken out of schools, etc. Non believers feel they have the right not to be exposed to things they aren't comfortable with.
But when gays try and shove their beliefs down our throats, those very same people say it is their right to not be discriminated against. These type of homosexuals mentioned in this case are mere bullies. They are merely punishing this bakery. I respect people's right to not want Christians to intrude in their lives. Now homosexuals must please afford us the same respect. We don't have to agree with gay pride. I don't see how gay rights should trump religious rights.
And now there is the case of a bakery asked to "bake a Bible-shaped cake with the words 'God Hates Gays' and an image of two men holding hands with a big X over them." The bakery owner refused because she said it was discriminatory. The bakery is now being sued. I guess that means that you can cut that cake both ways.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … -cake.html
Great article. Where does one draw the line?
I have no idea. It's an American problem.
How about at the door to the castle? In other words, keep private beliefs private; if you choose to operate a business in the public sector then leave your beliefs at home.
While this is not an ideal solution, it is in line with what is best for the country as a whole. We've done it before, when we required business to serve blacks the same as white, and it was good. Keeping religious bias to yourself is much the same.
No, if someone is uncomfortable decorating a cake with a certain message, why should they do it? There are also non religious people who wouldn't be comfortable making this cake. No one automatically has the right to have whatever they want decorated on a cake. That bakery mentioned in the article had a right to refuse to bake a cake with the message, "God hates gays."
If a white person came into a bakery and asked a black owner to bake a cake with the message, "Blacks should all be slaves or die", would it be unreasonable for that black owner to refuse to do it?
Would you expect a Christian baker to bake a cake with the image of Baphomet on it? To bake a cake with an inverted crucifix?
The customer who ordered that cake brought a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and won! So, in Colorado at least, you can force a bakery to bake a 'God hates gays' cake. I wonder if you can force a bakery there to make a pornographic cake? How about a pro-ISIS cake?
They should do it because they have chosen to participate in the public arena of business. An arena that denies the right to force beliefs onto others.
So you can't make a black sit in the back of the bus and you can't refuse to serve him. You can't refuse a girl the right to play football in her school. You can't refuse a woman the right to hold a political office. You cannot refuse to hire someone because of their religious beliefs. And you cannot use your own religious beliefs to dictate how others behave.
Now if you are in your home (or church) baking that cake to eat yourself rather than sell to the public, you can do whatever you wish with it.
I think your first paragraph says it all. It's called Fascism.
No, it's called "getting along with your neighbor". Or perhaps "tolerance"; something we can all use.
What it is not is "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." (freedictionary.com).
Spin it however you want, its the government dictating to free enterprise. Fascism, a step or two sideways from communism. And tolerance is just a smoke screen set up for the indolent by the libertine.
No, tolerance is the opposite of control. While the baker may claim it is not control, the fact is that he is trying to force his beliefs on anyone that uses his (public) business.
And yes, govt. dictates a great deal to free enterprise; things like serving everyone equally instead of a different stool. Or where they might ride the bus. As a people we are not smart enough to keep our bigotry or beliefs to ourselves and the result is that government will do it FOR us.
Yes, it's true that one cannot simply deny patronage based on race, sex, religion in much the same way that employers are not allowed to discriminate; however, private business owners have a bit more latitude. Look at the controversial SB1062 in Arizona: services can be denied based on religious principles. This was designed to protect those in the wedding industry from having to participate in gay weddings that are strongly against their beliefs that marriage be between a man and a woman. The bakery owner did not deny service. He refused to comply with a specific request to make a cake for a gay activist whose political agenda was in direct opposition to his own. Would you sue a vegan catering company owner for refusing to serve meat at a party of carnivores?
cat on a soapbox,
1) I do not believe that a vegan catering company would even have a vendor for meats in the first place which would likely aide in defending a lawsuit 2) I do not believe that a vegan catering company would even advertise any meats on their menus in the first place which would aide in a lawsuit 3) If anyone ever called a vegan catering company to book a party I would expect that they would inquire as to the menu 4) I do not believe that a carnivore party thrower would hire a vegan catering company to cater a party of carnivores in the first place. If he did, I would suggest he hire a party planer to make these decisions for him. A cake company already has all of the ingredients to make a variety of cakes, including one for a gay wedding. The cake shop owner is making a prejudicial decision to deny service to a patron based solely upon a religious belief in which the wall of separation has already addressed. You cannot rely on capitalism as the backbone of America and then infect it with public intolerance and humiliation. This clearly interferes with core human rights to equality and happiness which trumps all religious beliefs.
If the caterer didn't advertise as vegan but refused to adapt his menu based on views of eating animals, would he be open to a lawsuit because the client wanted to pay for his notoriety and was turned down?
What if the caterer discovered that his client was a big game trophy hunter when he went to survey the party site and canceled because of his P.E.T.A affiliation?
The statement that "you cannot rely on capitalism as the backbone of America and then infect it with public intolerance and humiliation" speaks volumes. Truly, it does seem that most are willing to sell out for the almighty dollar, and those who choose to stand on principle are being bullied into submission. Equality isn't one-sided. Who is REALLY being intolerant?
cat on a soapbox,
I do not believe that it is legal for one to walk into a restaurant or catering business and demand that they "adapt their menu" to cook/serve something in which they are not prepared to do, nor advertise as offering. For example, it is simply not legal that you walk into an Italian catering company and demand that they prepare Chinese food for your wedding, or demand the cook make you a hot dog if they do not have it on the menu, etc. By the way, I find it hard to believe that a vegan catering company would not advertise what food they have, have a menu, or that they would not discuss with a client exactly what food they are selling them. As a side-note, it is the cake-maker who is relying on capitalism to live which he then in turn infects. I am currently writing an essay in which I believe capitalism is undemocratic and impedes human rights.
Welcome to HubPages! I agree that the scenario is unlikely, but I was making a hypothetical example. Your essay sounds interesting. I encourage you to share it all or in part as a hub. The point I was going to make is that the baker felt so strongly against providing the cake for the election celebration of the gay activist mayor that he was willing to put his business at risk. Again, I don't think he would refuse to do business with a gay person in general, but we don't know from the facts presented.
No, I wouldn't serve a vegan for not serving meat at my function.
UNLESS, that is, they serve it to others. As the baker does when he serves a cake: the form of the decorative icing, made of the same material as on all his other cakes, is hardly in the same class as meat in a vegan catering business.
Good points you make. What if I had a religious belief against black people? Does that mean that I do not have to make black people cakes? Of course not! The wall of separation was written for a reason. Recall that religious beliefs were used as excuses by the south in the civil war to maintain slavery as well.
That's different. How can serving a black person go against one's conscious?
Would you expect a Jewish baker to make a cake with the swastika and a slogan that says, "Hail Hitler!"?
Let's not forget that here in the USA, the law prohibits "hate speech" which is really quite ambiguous and open to interpretation of latest regime in power. It is just amazing to see a 90-95% (supposedly intelligent) majority being controlled by a loud and deviant group of 5-10%.
Claire, I see you are a conspiracy theorist. I like that. Think on this one a few moments. The most recent push, especially in Canada, is to deem portions of the Bible as "hate speech" which, of course will eventually bring a movement to the Book being banned altogether. However, the wording that is under attack is not the KJV (the fundemental/conservative Bible) but that which is found in the newer versions of the Bible, versions. And these newer versions were developed by libertine thought and are prescribed by the "new evangelical, emerging church" movement. Could it be they are working for their adversary and don't even know it? Hmmm.
You make a good point which makes me realize that the freedom to have a gay cake made (in my opinion) is inspired by love. The freedom to deny making a gay cake (in my opinion) is inspired by hate.
The world wants Christianity to die out. It has nothing to do with rooting out other versions. As for the KJV, it is the Freemasonic bible which is in direct opposition to Christianity. King James was a Satanist himself.
Couple things. I am not going to the argument of the KJV correctness. You may use the several other previous English versions. The issue is the "dumbing down" of the Bible, ergo, the new way of salvation and the new less sinless presentations of the new versions and their presenters. And this would actually tie to your comment about satanists. Satan is not above using any method to fool the foolish.
As to King James being a satanist, I have to say he has been labeled a lot of things by a lot of groups but this is the first time I have ever heard this comment. Could you explain?
This should explain:
http://henrymakow.com/2013/06/Can-We-Tr … Bible.html
Did you know that the KJV is the Masonic Bible?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Masonic-Bible-K … 0007189524
I actually have to agree with you on this. No, they shouldn't be forced to do something they don't want to do.
It is beyond reprehensible that a person/company offering goods/services to the public should be able to deny another human being such goods/services based solely on that customers moral/sexual practices. What if a gay/lesbian mother/father walked into that bakery with their child and wanted a cake made, but the baker said "sorry, we don't serve gay people". Imagine the hurt, shock, and confusion of a child. Make your business private and close your doors to the public if you want to practice bigotry.
It's in poor taste,and probably against the rules, to spam the forums with links to your hubs.
Well, it was not because of the person's homosexuality in this case in this thread that was the reason why the baker wouldn't make the cake. It was that the message itself that was not agreeable. Those bakers would have no qualms about serving a gay person. That is what is considered discrimination.
I think its ridiculous that religious beliefs even factor into the equation at all really, especially for something as silly as cakes.
If they are a private owned business, as in they specifically choose their clients, I dont have to like whether or not they choose or dont choose to put something on their cakes. Thats all up to them. Easy to find someplace else.
If they are open to the public, what they believe or dont believe doesnt particularly matter. If someone asks for something specific to be put on their cake, shouldnt be any problem unless it violates some health code, the bakery's business policy, or falls under hate speech of any kind.
Now if anyone can explain how a "pro-gay" message on a cake falls under any of those 3 things, maybe we can take this persecution complex a little more seriously.
We know that the client does not have the right to demand any message on their cake. You are confirming that you do believe gay rights are more important than religious rights.
Would you expect a Jewish baker to make a cake of a swastika with the slogan, "Hail Hitler!"?
Has nothing to do with gay rights. If you offer a service in the public sector, you dont really have a say on who/what you serve because the public means "everyone".
Unless whatever request violates some form of policy, there is no reason the request should not be met. If there's some beliefs, religious or otherwise, that will interfere with that, they don't belong in the public sector. Would it make sense for me not to serve someone because I don't like the color of their shoes, or the shape of their nose? I doubt it does, but if I invoked that their shoes or their nose goes against my religious beliefs, does that mean I can suddenly refuse them service for such a stupid reason?
If the business is private on the other hand, well they can serve whoever and whatever they want.
As for the Hitler thing, yes I would expect them to make the cake. Would I personally ever request a cake like that? Not at all, but if they serve the public then they cater to what the public wants.
As a note, that wasnt religious based or even related to gay rights so I'm not sure where you were going with that.
Yes, but noses and shoes don't go against someone's moral conscience. If someone came and wanted a slogan that says, "Fight for incest rights", should a baker be obliged to bake that cake? Or if it says, "I'm a born paedophile"?
A customer wasn't refused custom because he was gay. That would have been discrimination. It was refused because of the message.
The public doesn't have a right for any message to be put on their cake. You do know that a baker, if taken to court for discrimination, could say to the judge that it is anti-Semetic? I'm just saying that the public is not entitled to have whatever they want.
"Gay rights." For the life of me, I cannot understand why there should be "gay rights."
For one thing, unlike such groups as blacks, women, Hispanics and Jews -- people who are sexually attracted to members of their own gender are not a separate and distinct group of human beings -- just as men and women who like to do it "missionary style" are not a separate and distinct group of human beings.
In other words, a sexual proclivity is not the same thing as a race, a skin color, a religion or an ethnicity.
Yes, but they feel discriminated against for being who they are like blacks were. There is no such thing as heterosexual rights because they don't get discriminated against for their sexuality.
Look, due to the fact that you are not black, I strongly suggest that you refrain from writing about how we (blacks) feel about discrimination.
Furthermore, black skin is normal; whereas, being sexually attracted to members of one's own gender is abnormal.
Yes, I said homosexuality is ABNORMAL.
Specifically, homosexuality is a natural condition, but it damn sure is not a normal condition. The condition is abnormal because it is not the "norm."
Finally, do not ever -- I repeat, do not ever -- compare what's happening to homosexuals to what's happening to black people.
Its the exact same thing...the parallels are so obvious its painful for anyone whos picked up a history book. You cant change you being black any more than they can change being gay, both sides were/still are persecuted for it. It sounds like a pathetic excuse when you say that you cant physically hide you being black but a homosexual person can hide their "gayness" so they dont have a right to complain. A gay black man must have a horrible time accepting he cant change his skin color and having to lie to himself about his sexuality because other people have a problem with it.
And since you arent gay yourself, what sense does it make to call homosexual people abnormal if you cant identify with them?
This is how I see it, so please correct what part of it is wrong:
-Black people were/still are oppressed and persecuted for something they cannot change: their skin color.
-Homosexual people were/still are oppressed and persecuted for something they cannot change: their sexual orientation.
Neither of the things both sides are oppressed/persecuted for make them any less of a human being and have problems caused for them by other people's insecurities and ignorance.
Thats one striking similarity. There are others, but thats probably the most noteworthy one since most others stem from that.
What are you a spoiled teenager? Keep your macho bullsh*t to yourself please. Its getting rather tiring, especially since you never seem to address anything that is said with any kind of substance.
I can only imagine you seem to think that I am somehow making it seem homosexual people are going through the same exact physical hardships that black people went through (slavery, lynchings, those kind of things). Never even implied that, nor have I seen anyone else say that either. The core reason as to WHY there is even a problem is the same for both instances, people suffer for something they have no way of changing about themselves. I stated that rather clearly before.
But please, continue to show how much of a man you are for threatening random people on the internet due to your own ignorance and misunderstanding. Obviously thats much easier to do than oh I dont know...talking?
I urge you to cease and desist in your making comparisons between the "black struggle" and whatever it is that homosexuals are going through.
And I invite you to visit my place of residency -- Spanish Harlem, NYC -- comparing homosexuals to blacks. The home boys and home girls in these parts will quickly set you straight and let you know, in no uncertain terms, what time it is.
Additionally, you stated that just like having black skin, one's proclivity for homosexual behavior cannot be changed.
Man, you're a real babe in the woods, aren't you.
Individuals slide in and out of being homosexual all the time. Due to the fact that I have been living on this planet for nearly 70 years, I have witnessed numerous incidents of people switching from being "gay" to being "straight." In fact, as I type this comment, that kind of thing is happening all over the country, and all around the world.
...thank you for showing you didn't read any of what I said. I expected gold and got brass..
And I'm sure some people do "choose", Generally they are called bisexuals. Might even be pansexual. They can choose because it doesn't matter to them either way. If, for yourself, you made a conscious choice to not like guys...sorry to say but that might mean you considered guys at one point. Never was a choice for me to be attracted to women, it just happened. If that was the case for you as well feenix, it shouldnt be that difficult for you to apply that logic to others, unless...
Actually, what you wrote strengthened the case I am making.
Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, bi-sexuality and asexuality are nothing more than human beings' leading kinds of sexual behavior of lack thereof . Thus, just as people's being heterosexual and asexual does not cause them to members of separate and distinct groups of human beings, homosexuality and bi-sexuality does not cause people to be members of separate and distinct groups of human beings.
In other words, the vast majority of human beings are sexual and a relative few are asexual. And among all the ones who are sexual, most of them get their jollies by having heterosexual hook ups, some get their jollies by having homosexual hook ups, and some get their jollies by going both ways.
So, I will say it one more time: Being homosexual or bi-sexual is not the same thing as being black, Hispanic, Jewish, Arab or East Asian. Homosexuality and bi-sexuality are merely the kinds of sexual behavior practiced by some blacks, some Hispanics, some Jews, some Arabs and some East Asians.
Im starting to wonder if you purposely try to make people not take what you say seriously feenix.
People cant change who they are attracted to.
People cant change their skin color.
Or we can go Aime's route:
People cant change their skin color.
Women cant change the fact that they are a woman.
Both sides in either situation are discriminated against for things they cannot change about themselves. That is the only comparison I have made. You made a half assed attempt to prove the first one wrong by saying you witness people changing who they sleep with all the time. When you are told the very obvious fact that people like that are bisexual, suddenly your stance changes to "Oh, well thats just what everyone likes, but its not the same as being black".
No one, at least between me, Claire, and Aime anyway that I have seen, has said being homosexual is the same as being black. At all. That would imply they have gone through the same exact hardships, and obviously that isnt true.
What HAS been said multiple times at this point is that the reason any of those 3 groups mentioned above are discriminated against is the exact same across the board, there is something different about them that they cannot change and people take issue with that and act negatively towards it.
Im done. Tag out, snack break, nap time, tropical vacation. Cant put it any more clearer than that. If you keep asserting that all gay people can choose to be straight any time they want, please answer whether or not you ever made a conscious choice to not like men, or even better address Aime's point and explain why gay teens continue to be gay even when an alarming amount are bullied to the point of suicide.
I was just writing from the perspective of how gays feel. If you read other responses of mine, I say it is ludicrous to compare black discrimination back in the day to a gay apparently being discriminated against because some baker wouldn't bake his cake with a message the baker is uncomfortable with. However, if the baker wouldn't bake the cake because the customer was gay, that would be discrimination. You can't discriminate because someone is black, religious or gay.
I'm against discrimination, but based on the facts of this case I think it was a bad call by the judge and may be overturned on appeal. This is the cake that was requested:
With other cases the refusal has been because of who the cake is for, e.g. a gay couple. In this case it can be argued that the refusal was because of what was written on the cake, not who it was for. It just so happened that the customer was gay.
I think it's reasonable to conclude that the bakers would not have made that particular cake for any customer, not just the customer in question. As such I don't think it can be classed as discrimination on a protected characteristic. It would be no different to a baker refusing to make a cake containing what they deemed to be an offensive message. Then the question would be, is it legal to refuse to make a cake with a message that you found personally offensive? That's very different to asking whether the bakery engaged in discrimination based on sexual orientation.
But isn't all discrimination (including sexual orientation) based on a personal dislike? Something the discriminator finds personally offensive, whether it is skin color, sex, sexual orientation or anything else?
On the other hand, those pictures ARE copyrighted and cannot be put on ANY cake without specific permission...
Yes but not all discrimination is illegal. Despite popular perception it is perfectly legal for businesses to discriminate, as long as the discrimination is not based on one of several protected characteristics (religion, race, political belief etc.)
The defendants argued that they would not have made that cake for a heterosexual person either. In other words it was not the customer's sexual orientation (protected characteristic) the owners were objecting to, but the slogan on the cake (not a protected characteristic). If a baker refused to make a cake with the slogan "support the New York Giants", on the grounds that they hate football, then they are perfectly within their rights to do so. That might be bad business, but it's not illegal.
In the case of bakeries refusing to make wedding cakes for gay couples, that clearly is discrimination and it clearly is illegal because service is being withheld because of the sexual orientation of the recipients (a protected characteristic). That doesn't seem to be the case here, so I think the judge has overreached. The only way it might stand is if it can be argued that the slogan was a political message ("support gay marriage") and therefore objecting to the message was discrimination based on political view, which is a protected characteristic in Northern Ireland. Either way, descrimination was not based on sexual orientation.
Good point. Unless that image is in the public domain, reproducing it for the purpose of making a profit likely constitutes copyright infringement. But I suspect the fact the bakery did not give that as the reason for withholding service at the time, it would not serve as a defense now.
First, I don't think the image was given as a reason, either. It would be a very valid one, but was not given.
But sexual orientation is not a protected class at all: it is still quite legal in my state to discriminate in rental homes, for instance, based on just that. (A recent proposed law change went down in flames in this Mormon state). There are other examples as well. Or IS it protected in Ireland?
The discrimination, it seems, comes from a religious angle and not sexual preference (I'm guessing, because it wasn't in the states). And just how the judge twisted it to be religious discrimination is a little vague to me.
Yes, sexual orientation is a protected class in Northern Ireland where this case took place.
Religion may be the root cause of the baker's discrimination, but the legality/illegality of the discrimination in these cases is based on which specific attribute of the person affected, the discrimination is based on.
In this case, the bakers where very clear that they would not have baked that cake for anyone because of the message on it. In her ruling the judge decided the defendants must have assumed the plaintiff was gay, and therefore discriminated against him on those grounds. Even with the lesser burden of proof in civil cases compared to criminal cases, I think this was an overreach.
Based on the other evidence presented in their defense (the fact that they serve other openly gay customers; the fact that one of their staff is gay) I think it is reasonable for them to argue that they were not discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation, but on the grounds that they disagree with the message that was being requested. That would not be illegal. The only way it could be, is if the message was deemed to be political, as it's illegal to discriminate on the grounds of political affiliation in Northern Ireland. However, the plaintiff did not sue on those grounds, he sued for discrimination against his sexual orientation. So I think the case has been misjudged.
Unfortunately the politics surrounding the case isn't helping to clarify the nuances of this legal question. It's just turned into another battle in the culture war going on at the moment.
I don't know, Don - it's really hard to judge the verdict of a judge in foreign lands. The laws just don't match with ours and there always seems to be a little "catch" in there that changes it into something unexpected. Given what you've said here, I'd have to go with the judge, simply because I don't know the law.
Unless you are Irish and live with these laws every day?
Most of the news articles explain that political affiliation is a protected attribute in Northern Ireland because of the sectarian conflict in that part of the world (it prevents Catholics refusing to serve Protestants and vice versa). It's also useful to read the judgment itself which is online (can't find the link at the moment). On the face of it I can't agree with the judge that this was discrimination based on sexual orientation. I think it would also be a stretch to consider it discrimination based on political affiliation. They were not refusing to sell him a decorated cake, which is the service they provide. They were refusing to sell him a decorated cake with those specific words on it.
Perhaps an easy solution for the bakery is to create terms and conditions that include "no political slogans".
Is it discriminatory to have a solid policy of "no hateful messages"? I don't think so. Bake the cake and let the customer do the decoration at home. That being said, a private business owner shouldn't be forced to compromise his principals, nor should he lecture others with his views on morality.
The problem as I see it is that the private business owner (baker in this case) isn't protecting his principles at all, not unless his principles include forcing them on everyone around him. The baker isn't being asked to marry a gay, he's being asked to make a cake for a gay. By refusing to do so the baker is doing what little he can to force the anti-gay principle onto someone else.
Then I suppose you agree that it is OK to force a bakery in Colorado to "bake a Bible-shaped cake with the words 'God Hates Gays' and an image of two men holding hands with a big X over them."
Yes. If a customer would like a cake baked with the words "god hates gays" on it for some bible party I see no reason to deny making the cake since he is in the business of making cakes for profit. The cakes existence is not what causes harm. Treating someone as a second class citizen based on their personal moral/sexual practices is what's harmful.
I don't see this event as simply denying service to a gay man. I see this as refusing to be a part of an election celebration for a gay activist mayor whose agenda worked against his religious beliefs. "Sorry, I can't cross that line. Try the baker 2 blocks over." Discrimination? No. Respectful disagreement based on personal principles.
Absolutely. I agree with baking the cake and letting the purchaser do the icing. Or go somewhere else like most people would do.
It is not what the rights are about (orientation or religion) but how fundamental the right is.
Every since we banned white-only lunch counters it has generally been assumed that a retailer should offer to their services to everyone, and that discrimination based on a protected category (orientation or religion etc) is not permitted in this context. This has been extended to people who make slogan-goods. So if the cake was pro-atheist, or pro-Jewish, or pro-feminist, or pro-mens rights, or pro-anything, bakers have to make it.
That is, outside of hate speech a professional baker who offers slogan cakes is there to help people celebrate whatever is important to them, not only the things he or she approves of.
Primarily none is more important than the other in that both are of equal standing. It is only a matter of one man's food being another man's poison. This is because even in religion, there are gays. In fact, it seems the first official marriage was between Christians in a church. However, the problem is the failure to respect a law or right we are against even when such right does not deny us our own right. If you are serving a public then you do not have to discriminate except if your service is restricted to set of people. Religious right in itself includes the right to respect other religions which most people still fail to do. What will anyone do if gay becomes a form of religion?
I suppose that the christian business owners who believe that their freedom to have and worship their chosen religion includes the right to break the law and discriminate against others would also be perfectly fine with people refusing to serve people on the basis of being a Christian or anyone wearing a cross or crucifix, right? Or is discrimination only acceptable when they're the ones being discriminatory, otherwise they claim persecution?
If someone wanted to refuse my business due to my beliefs, so be it, I walk to another provider where my beliefs are accepted.
I wonder why these activists chose a Christian bakery, when there must have been a Muslim one they could have activated against.
But its a good scam if you want to do it, just go to any number of Muslim bakers and ask them to cook a cake with a Mohammed cartoon on the front, then when they refuse, report them and collect the damages awarded for your denial of service.
Of course you may also be killed for trying that..... which is probably why they chose to attack Christians
Would you want to eat a cake. That you forced someone to make.? Ill pass .
Christianity tells peope that dont believe the way they do.that they will go to hell.how back of the bus is that?
religion - the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices. A deity is not necessary. All that is necessary is an agree to thought process, however warped it might be.
Could a religion then be a "body of persons adhering to" a fractured thought process that those that disagree with them regarding racism, bigotry, intolerance ... or business practices are wrong? Yes.
Could a religion be a "body of persons adhering to" a need for a multicultural world without morals or restraints? Yes.
We understand that religion has always been a problem. And the inventors of religions are men and women of the same mind set.
The only thing missing from "these "religions is God. God is not a religion. God does not sponsor a religion. God does not like religion.
And this fits well with the latest, but not the newest, "religion" of anarchy and apathy and total tolerance. Its the religion of humanism, the favored religion of man.
" God does not sponsor a religion. God does not like religion."
A great many priests, shamans, preachers, pastors, rabbis, bishops and even popes would disagree with you. God always likes whatever religion/sect they promote, and sponsors it as well.
The sun. Is a good god. It's no wonder it was worshiped first.
Once upon a time, Mr. Whitechin, a bakery owner, woke up and told his wife, I will not scrawl "Happy Birthday" in icing on one more cake.
"I don't know how long I will be in this mood," he explained, "But I will simply not do it until I darn well feel like it. Maybe next week, maybe next month."
His wife said, "But word will catch on and those who want "Happy birthday" on their cakes will go elsewhere. We will loose business!"
"I do not care!" Mr Whitechin retorted. So, for a week or so he told every customer that walked in wanting "Happy Birthday" on his or her cake that he was very sorry, "But, I am currently and temporarily not in the mood…"
"Oh!" cried Mrs. Tilden, one of his most loyal customers. "Then I will go to Sophia's Sweets down the street. Silvia is always cheerful and compliant with HER customers." Mrs. Tilden bustled out of the bakery and resolved never to come back. "I cannot do business with such a temperamental business owner," she thought.
Which is pretty much how every customer who wanted a cake with "Happy Birthday" scrawled across it in icing, thought.
And no one, who needed a birthday cake, ever returned to Mr. Whitechin's bakery again.
(Well, except for Jack Sprat's wife who really adored Mr. Whitechin's apple fritters. And she had to do it behind her family's back.)
Moral of the story:
The free market should be FREE.
Who tells the business owner that he has to do ANYTHING?
His willingness to accept the consequences for his actions is the only thing that should dictate his behavior.
Now if it is a legal matter that one MUST provide the services advertised, then that's another story.
Mr. Whitechin would have to somehow stipulate that he will only write Happy Birthday on a cake when in the mood.
As far as hate speech or abuse of freedom of speech, the Irish baker could include a disclaimer in his advertising that he will not use the words "hate" or "gay" or "bloody" or "vicious"… in other words he can indicate what words and messages he will NOT scrawl in icing on his cakes. Then no one can force him to go against his will.
You did catch that the cake in the Irish question was not a birthday cake? It was not a wedding cake. It was to be a part of a celebration over the election of a new mayor, and the given reason the baker refused to make it was that it celebrating a political election was against his religious beliefs.
In actuality, of course, it was because the purchaser was a gay activist, campaigning to end discrimination - social discrimination the baker approved of.
I will never believe that it is right for someone to gain their livelihood from a public arena, while simultaneously using it to humiliate select mass groups of people. The public can walk in off of the street through your doors and be with children, family, friends, or among other customers. Any professional baker having any respect for our nations free, law abiding, tax-paying citizens would never deny a request to bake a cake based upon the customer (OR occasions) race, sex, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation. With that being said, it is ONLY appropriate to deny a cake which promotes hatred (i.e. God hates...) because promoting ideals of hate are proven to be a danger to public safety--NOT homosexuality. If a customer wants a cake made of a sexual, or other nature in which the baker does not create, it is professional and acceptable to state that you are not proficient in making such cakes in those categories for anyone at all ever --- not that you are simply refusing to make them one.
I agree. Many don't. They believe they have a mandate from their god to "spread the word" (read: enforce their religion on others whenever possible).
The baker was found guilty of discrimination, so if that gives you feelings of satisfaction, drink it in.
Had it been me that was refused service, I would have sucked it up, probably cursed at him and written a bad review, then taken my business elsewhere.
btw: I think religious people are discriminated against all of the time, but then it seems that atheism is more popular these days. Also, I need clarification: what does" having religion forced upon you" really mean?
I would probably have simply left, too, and gone elsewhere...if there WAS an elsewhere to go to. Many small towns wouldn't have much, if any competition and what there was could likely be of a similar mind.
It means being forced to follow the rules and morality of the religion. Such as no gay marriages. Such as teaching creationism to kids. Such as being forced to submit to the rituals of the religious (prayer, maybe, at public functions).
The bakery is in Greater Belfast, and Mr. Lee was able to find another baker to make his cake with little trouble/emotional distress.
Oh! it is not about words on a cake. Sorry about that.
Nevertheless, perhaps the same argument can be applied:
As far as his rights to not sell a cake for religious reasons, the Irish baker could include a disclaimer in his advertising that he will refuse service to anyone intending to use his cakes for events which are not in compliance with his religious convictions.
I agree with Claire: He has a right to operate his business and make decisions based on HIS religious convictions.
Perhaps HIS rights should have cancelled out the charge!
He does not have the right to dictate what other people do with the cake he makes, and doubly so if it is so for religious reasons. His religious beliefs end with the making of the cake: to try and extend them further onto what others will do is beyond the scope of the bakers personal religious freedom. Or so I see it.
Plus, of course, he is operating in the public sector, where religious discrimination is illegal. He may not impose his beliefs onto others while there.
And others do not have the right to dictate that someone makes a cake against their will.
If he had not mentioned why he needed a cake, he would've gotten the cake.
I really do not think this sort of thing would happen here in the states. We are too capitalistic.
"I don't see how gay rights should trump religious rights."
Under the law, they are equal. Discrimination against others for religious disagreement or sexual orientation disagreement are both equally wrong.
I agree with Claire: The baker has a right to operate his business and make decisions based on HIS religious convictions.
Perhaps HIS rights should have cancelled out the charge!
It gets down to this: Certain religious convictions cause discrimination against homosexuals.
While homosexuals discriminate against believers by being intolerant of their beliefs.
"... the ethics of claiming a political celebration goes against religious principles."
In this case, then, the baker should still be able to refuse service based on political convictions.
When Mr. Lee called in his order, he stupidly explained what he needed the cake for:
"It is to mark the election of the first openly gay mayor in Northern Ireland, Andrew Muir!"
Mr. Whitechin said to himself, "I do not believe in this political choice for a mayor, because he is gay and I do not believe in homosexuality. I do not want to contribute even a crumb of cake in celebration of this mayor."
So when Mr. Lee came in, Mr. Whitechin scratched his head, shrugged his shoulders and explained, "You'll, have to come back next week, I just ran out of flour."
Of course this customer grumbled, but he left to go to another shop.
Are white lies like this punishable with Hell in the after life?
Are business owners allowed to pick and choose who they serve without it being discrimination?
Is "No shirt, No shoes, No service" the same as
"No Liberals Served in this Establishment." or
"No Conservatives Served Here."
Is it illegal to discriminate on the basis of political affiliation/beliefs/convictions/principles… (yet?)
In which case it should be discriminating to those not wearing shirts and shoes, as well.
Sorry... trying to learn.
We have the right to not like anything we want.we have the right to disagree to anything we want.we have the right to vote anyway we want . Forced acceptance is what i see in the gay agenda.
inclination, tendency, leaning, disposition, proneness, propensity, bent, bias, penchant, predisposition; predilection, partiality, liking, preference, taste, fondness, weakness.
proclivity |prōˈklivətē, prə-| noun
a tendency to choose or do something regularly; an inclination or predisposition toward a particular thing:
Yes, so what is your point?
Anyway, I will say it this way: My black skin, kinky hair and Negroid facial features are distinct physical characteristics. However, the fact that I like to get it on with women, or that I am "straight," is not a distinct physical characteristic. It merely indicates that just like almost all other human beings, I like to have sex.
I did not have a point.
I just wanted to indicate the meaning of proclivity.
NP We never know where another is coming from.
Another's point of view and stance is a mystery for awhile.
I like to discover the consistency of others' viewpoints /edit /(as their stance emerges in time.)
At first I did not understand your viewpoint.
But I am starting to. And mostly agree.
But, I do wonder why you mentioned physical characteristics in relation to this issue.
<"My black skin, kinky hair and Negroid facial features are distinct physical characteristics. However, the fact that I like to get it on with women, or that I am "straight," is not a distinct physical characteristic.">
Kathryn, several minutes ago, I was watching a TV news correspondent reporting from Arlington Cemetery and that prompted something to come to mind.
In the war I fought in, Vietnam, the race of every military person killed was a matter of record, mostly because it was usually quite obvious what race each of them were.
So, while watching that news reporter standing among all the white-cross tombstones, I asked myself, When those men's dead bodies were found on the battlefield, how often was it known that one was "gay." I mean, like, no one could tell just by looking at their bodies.
Thus, it is like I said in another comment in this forum: People who are sexually attracted to members of their own gender are not a separate and distinct group of people.
okay, people are people.
I believe in reality, (on a spiritual level,) we are both sexes, anyway.
So, Mr. Whitechin should have just made the cake.
And Mr. Lee should have just accepted that Mr. Whitechin is a so and so.
Can't we all just get along?
I am also a female? Wow, that means I'm a lesbian. ; )
<" Forced acceptance is what i see in the gay agenda.">
Forced acceptance is what some see in the agenda of (some) theists.
BTW Forcing is always taboo!
I just didn't get the entire bruhaha. What does buying a wedding cake, sexual
preference, and religion have to do with anything? It sounded like unadulterated, pure bias--discrimination, to me.
One thing a lot of people need to keep in mind is that not every one has caught with the times.
As an example, back in 1970s, I had a great-big "Jackson-Five-type Afro." And my Mama, who had not caught up with times, had the hardest time getting used to me and other young blacks wearing our hair that way.
I think you'll find that most people will tell you that they haven't chosen to be straight. Likewise, most gay people haven't chosen to be gay.
Every gay person that I know (and I know quite a few due to my best friend being gay and my uncle being gay) doesn't flip-flop between being gay and being straight. My best friend has kissed women before but more for experience/curiosity and he would not in a million years say he wasn't gay. My uncle was married to a woman and had children before finally coming out as gay, and he insists that he was never truly straight (and he went through depression for most of his adult life being married to a woman). His family (my husband's) is very, very religious and it took him until he was almost 40 and both of his parents were dead to feel comfortable enough to come out.
I don't choose who I'm attracted to or who I want to have sex with, so what gives me the right to assume that anyone else does? I'd say anyone who can switch between homosexual and heterosexual is actually bisexual, and people look down on that, too.
I think the comparison between discrimination against black people and gay people is meant to be very simple. As Link pointed out, it's discrimination against something about yourself that can't be changed at will. Young people especially get bullied to the point of committing suicide because of being gay, why would anyone CHOOSE that? Discrimination against and disgusting treatment of gays is very, very real.
Would you feel better if I compared it to discrimination against women? It's the same deal. I can't change the fact that I have a vagina any more than someone can change the fact that they're gay. As a woman I don't find the comparison offensive in the slightest. Comparing two things doesn't mean that they have to be identical, it's done to show similarities.
"Thus, just as people's being heterosexual and asexual does not cause them to members of separate and distinct groups of human beings"
You're right, it absolutely doesn't. The problem is that too many people think that it does. If everyone realized that homosexuals were exactly the same as heterosexuals and thus deserved the same treatment and respect as heterosexuals, then we wouldn't have to be having this conversation in the first place.
Some people are so uneducated.I believe everyone has the same rights no matter skin color or sexual orientation.
Everyone has equal rights, except when the Constitution gets bent out of shape. All this dither and blither is not about equal rights, but about special rights for a limited group(s). As long as your needed special rights do not infringe on my Constitutional birthrights, have at it.
And which groups want special rights that no one else has, and what are those rights?
Gays, that want the same right to marry the one they love, and that everyone else has?
The shame and sham of it all is that there is no right to marry in the Constitution. Of course life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are part of the reason for the make up of the Constitution, but it is not a given right. And the Warren court (1967) did grant equal rights by the Constitution to racially intermarry. However, the foundation of the opinion seems to be that the institution of marriage was for “the right of having a family, a wife, children, home.” Outside of twisting words to suit the twisted mind, the fulfillment of purpose is impossible. One may read into this anything that suits their purpose, but procreation and adoption are not the same. One may adopt because of procreation, but procreation does not include adoption and procreation will not occur in the practice of "same sex marriage."
Are you of the opinion then that couples who are infertile or do not want children should also not have the right to marry?
... twisting words ... you identify yourself.
Can you please explain how I'm twisting words? You stated that marriage was at least part about procreation, did you not?
You accused me of twisting your words. I asked you how, given the fact that you said a part of the purpose of marriage was procreation, and I asked you if couples who ate infertile or didn't want children should have the ability to legally marry.
It's not twisting words at all. It's literally the same thing. If procreation is one of the 'purposes' of marriage then infertile couples and couples who stay childless by choice don't have any more right to marry than a gay couple does.
But you don't like that so you dismiss the comparison.
The constitution does not give the right to ride in the front of the bus, either, or the right to organize labor. It doesn't give anyone the right to elementary education, medical care or food. It doesn't even give the right to worship, or to worship who and as we might please.
I trust you get the point?
Yes, But I think you are missing it, regarding the subject at hand.
You're the one insinuating that only constitutional rights need be given to anyone, not I.
There in no guarantee nor entitlement in the Constitution regarding the subject at hand.
Right. And none for the rights I mentioned either, yet we as a society DO guarantee them. So...can you explain the difference - why one group has rights but another does not have the same right?
Or will you fall back to the tired old "one woman, one man" litany as the right to marriage?
by Scott Bateman7 months ago
The Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects religious people from legal repercussions if they verbally condemn the lifestyle or actions of LGBT persons. Additionally, the bill expands the definition of an...
by Paul Wingert6 weeks ago
All Trump seems to do is insult women, minorities and the US as a whole. So one might ask, why would any woman, minority or anyone with an ounce of dignity vote for him? For the fundamentalist Christian, this makes...
by mr. daydream5 years ago
I know being openly gay, coming out the closet, gay rights etc., seems to be one of the latest fads in today's society. But don't you think at times society as a whole (in particular Hollywood and the music industry...
by earnestshub6 years ago
We have a new Australian hubber named "Antecessor" I challenge all religious believers to read her hubs, where she provides a very strong case against your beliefs.Any one gutsy enough to read her hubs with an...
by kathleenkat4 years ago
Context reference:http://money.msn.com/business-news/arti … =ansmony11I am curious as to what my fellow Hubbers think of Chick-Fil-A.I personally believe that as our country is founded on the principles of...
by Paul Edmondson2 years ago
I'm wondering if Tebow would be on a team if he didn't have the external publicity that seems to be garnered by his faith.
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.