Full rights for the LGBT community.

aloyisious

Original content P/M'd to interested party

Scofflaw

Interesting, but not terribly on-topic.

mildly moderately,
Scofflaw

aloyisious

http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/poplife/2014/09/16/queen-of-ireland-is-go/

Pantibliss docu reaches funding required: it's a go!!!

aloyisious

USSC Judge Ginsburg : Marriage rulings in 6th Circuit likely to dictate high court’s urgency. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/09/ginsburg-marriage-rulings-in-6th-circuit-likely-to-dictate-high-courts-urgency/

aloyisious

Tonight's RTE 1 Prime Time is covering the LGBT Teachers Employment rights versus Christian School Ethos rights issue tonight, following it's coverage of the Scottish Independence Vote issue.

colossus-x

Muahahaha wrote: »

...... The other problem I forsee is who exactly is going to run the Yes campaign in the areas where it probably most needs to be run, rural Ireland. I can see the LGBT lobby making a political error here- ......
.

I agree completely. Even worse when the fundies have started campaigning in rural areas already as I discovered when I went to visit my folks recently. My mum passed me this rag that was hand delivered to them courtsey of http://4youireland.blogspot.ie/ . From memory one of the headlines went along the lines of "Leaving Lesbianism for a man of love" and also a piece on how cured homosexuals have become the most marginalized people in society and in the media. Pains me to think some people would be swayed by this but as @Muahahaha says when no campaigning is going to happen in rural areas then what result would you expect.

aloyisious

There are two items in today's Irish Times which affect heterosexual, homosexual persons. The first is this: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/legal-and-political-considerations-may-lie-behind-removal-of-surrogacy-plans-1.1942130. -- It refer's to the Children and Family Relationships Bill and supposes the removal may allow for a quicker advance of adoption rights not only to same-sex civil partners but to cohabiting couples as well. I can see how that might "sweeten" the pill for some people of having to swallow the furtherance of adoption rights to same-sex C/P'd couples. I don't know how, or whether, this will affect Bi or Trans people. The new piece will also allow those born through surrogacy the right to trace their parent, banning the use of anonymous sperm and egg donations.

The 2nd item is about a proposal to Gov't for a referendum (on a date to be decided) to remove the offence of blasphemy from the constitution, replacing it with a general provision covering incitement to religious hatred and an offence (within the lawbooks) of incitement to religious hatred.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/referendum-due-on-removing-blasphemy-from-constitution-1.1945835. -- This one might be equally a hot potato with much shouting about removal of freedom to proclaim in public one's particular religious beliefs, or beliefs on religion.

gizmo555

aloyisious wrote: »

This one might be equally a hot potato with much shouting about removal of freedom to proclaim in public one's particular religious beliefs, or beliefs on religion.

It should be a hot potato. We should be extremely cautious about criminalising or curtailing free speech and freedom of expression in any way.

aloyisious

gizmo555 wrote: »

It should be a hot potato. We should be extremely cautious about criminalising or curtailing free speech and freedom of expression in any way.

Particularly when it comes to persons of one faith claiming that marriages of other religions are not real marriages, that those of Christian faith are the only real marriages existing and should be the only ones recognized by the state. I'd imagine that that stated view would be insulting and offensive to other faiths.

Rory28

gizmo555 wrote: »

It should be a hot potato. We should be extremely cautious about criminalising or curtailing free speech and freedom of expression in any way.

Not if your "free speech and freedom of expression" is used to discriminate against others.

marienbad

Rory28 wrote: »

Not if your "free speech and freedom of expression" is used to discriminate against others.

Can you give an example ?

Rory28

marienbad wrote: »

Can you give an example ?

Yes.

Being gay is against Gods will so therefore we can treat these people as second class citizens by denying them equal rights.

Not my opinion just an example.

PopePalpatine

Eh...I'd say that saying homosexuality is against "God's will" would be an indirect way of denying people their rights if enough people believed that. I guess you're referring to incitement to hatred there.

Rory28

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Eh...I'd say that saying homosexuality is against "God's will" would be an indirect way of denying people their rights if enough people believed that. I guess you're referring to incitement to hatred there.

Maybe but its still within their rights of free speech to quote bible verses.

gizmo555

aloyisious wrote: »

Particularly when it comes to persons of one faith claiming that marriages of other religions are not real marriages, that those of Christian faith are the only real marriages existing and should be the only ones recognized by the state. I'd imagine that that stated view would be insulting and offensive to other faiths.

If protection of free speech only extended to what at any given time are considered inoffensive and polite statements, there would be little point to it.

marienbad

Rory28 wrote: »

Yes.

Being gay is against Gods will so therefore we can treat these people as second class citizens by denying them equal rights.

Not my opinion just an example.

so are you saying it should be illegal to say this or what ?

Rory28

marienbad wrote: »

so are you saying it should be illegal to say this or what ?

No but if it is blatant lies ie gay = paedo then yes it totally should be.

gizmo555

Rory28 wrote: »

No but if it is blatant lies ie gay = paedo then yes it totally should be.

If it's blatant lies, as this is, then why would it be necessary to make saying it illegal? If it's that blatant, it's just obviously untrue.

(Actually, depending on the context, it could already be under the Incitement to Hatred Act. All the same I don't see why we need to replace one blasphemy provision in the constitution with another offence of secular "blasphemy".)

marienbad

Rory28 wrote: »

No but if it is blatant lies ie gay = paedo then yes it totally should be.

I don't think you have thought this through .

aloyisious

gizmo555 wrote: »

If protection of free speech only extended to what at any given time are considered inoffensive and polite statements, there would be little point to it.

Whatever about persons of Christian persuasion objecting to the extension of State Civil Marriage rites here claiming that it would have an effect on Marriage overall, it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to know that calling into doubt the authenticity of O/P's religious marriages by stating that Christian marriages are the only real ones can't fail to be seen as a slur on the other religions. I'd hope that you would not agree with statements or speeches deliberately intended to be pro-active towards causing public disorder being given the mantle of free speech, when those of religious fervour are likely to be upset.

gizmo555

aloyisious wrote: »

Whatever about persons of Christian persuasion objecting to the extension of State Civil Marriage rites here claiming that it would have an effect on Marriage overall, it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to know that calling into doubt the authenticity of O/P's religious marriages by stating that Christian marriages are the only real ones can't fail to be seen as a slur on the other religions. I'd hope that you would not agree with statements or speeches deliberately intended to be pro-active towards causing public disorder being given the mantle of free speech, when those of religious fervour are likely to be upset.

There are already limitations on free speech where direct incitement to crime is involved.

However, limiting free speech to protect people from becoming "upset" or "offended" is no free speech at all.

Good example of official efforts in Britain to protect citizens from being "offended" brought to absurd levels in today's "Guardian" online:



Banksy has struck again – but an Essex council has struck back, removing his artwork that it said contained “offensive and racist remarks”.

The latest mural by the controversial graffiti artist, whose real identity is not widely publicised, was painted overnight in Clacton-on-Sea, a week away from a byelection in the town triggered by the decision of local Conservative MP, Douglas Carswell, to defect to Ukip.

The work showed five grey pigeons holding up signs including one stating “go back to Africa” towards a more colourful migratory swallow. One of the pigeons’ signs read “migrants not welcome”, while another held a placard that read “keep off our worms”.

Nigel Brown, communications manager for Tendring district council, said it had received a complaint on Tuesday that “offensive and racist remarks” had been painted on a seafront building.

“The site was inspected by staff who agreed that it could be seen as offensive and it was removed this morning in line with our policy to remove this type of material within 48 hours,” he said.

FreudianSlippers

marienbad wrote: »

Can you give an example ?

Article 40.6.1.i of the Constitution grants the right of citizens to freely express their convictions and opinions, subject to public order and morality (considered in State (Lynch) V. Cooney [1982] IR 337).

The exceptions to free speech are also enshrined in the ECHR:

The exercise of [freedom of speech], since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

We also have the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, which prohibits words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred [against] a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation".

aloyisious

gizmo555 wrote: »

There are already limitations on free speech where direct incitement to crime is involved.

However, limiting free speech to protect people from becoming "upset" or "offended" is no free speech at all.

Good example of official efforts in Britain to protect citizens from being "offended" brought to absurd levels in today's "Guardian" online:



Banksy has struck again – but an Essex council has struck back, removing his artwork that it said contained “offensive and racist remarks”.

The latest mural by the controversial graffiti artist, whose real identity is not widely publicised, was painted overnight in Clacton-on-Sea, a week away from a byelection in the town triggered by the decision of local Conservative MP, Douglas Carswell, to defect to Ukip.

The work showed five grey pigeons holding up signs including one stating “go back to Africa” towards a more colourful migratory swallow. One of the pigeons’ signs read “migrants not welcome”, while another held a placard that read “keep off our worms”.

Nigel Brown, communications manager for Tendring district council, said it had received a complaint on Tuesday that “offensive and racist remarks” had been painted on a seafront building.

“The site was inspected by staff who agreed that it could be seen as offensive and it was removed this morning in line with our policy to remove this type of material within 48 hours,” he said.

Pity that, as it was clearly a comment on politics and some of its members. Guess the council is taking the easy option of keeping the councillors happy.

marienbad

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Article 40.6.1.i of the Constitution grants the right of citizens to freely express their convictions and opinions, subject to public order and morality (considered in State (Lynch) V. Cooney [1982] IR 337).

The exceptions to free speech are also enshrined in the ECHR:


We also have the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, which prohibits words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred [against] a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation".

Thanks , but I was referring to Rory's post and what he would consider curtailing . If it was along the lines he indicated it was no free speech at all

aloyisious

Sixteen years ago today, the discovery of a crime which shook the US and forced change to it's legal and criminal legislation. Matthew Shepherd found tied to, and left to die at, a plains-fence near Laramie, Wyoming. R.I.P, Matthew.

aloyisious

BTW, Saturday is National Coming-out Day, so if you feel like celebrating your stepping out of the closet (for the upteenth time) that's the day.

Edit. If you've some spare time tomorrow (Sat) there's this at the Oscar Wilde statue North-East corner of Merrion Square: https://www.facebook.com/events/781999108524114/?ref=4

aloyisious

While the synod is on in Rome, this is in the media... http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/top_vatican_official_parents_must_not_expose_children_to_aggressive_homosexual_agenda

I'm a bit surprised at this as I thought that Pope Francis had moved this gent.. https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDwQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2013%2F12%2F17%2Fworld%2Feurope%2Fpope-replaces-conservative-us-cardinal-on-influential-vatican-committee.html&ei=hfo4VLOMKamM7Aaq2IGgAg&usg=AFQjCNFoYd97vTmCHH-r68EmkAWuRgrxow

zielarz

aloyisious wrote: »

Re your "this vote will show how things really are" with reference to being catholic. you may/should be aware that: A. there are LGBT people here who consider themselves Roman Catholic, having sexual intercourse with their same-sex partner, still attend mass and yet believe in equal civil marriage to the extent of wanting it for themselves.

Can a Catholic support sin? Read the Bible, it's clear that homosexual act is sinful. It's one of the most serious sins.

aloyisious wrote: »

and B. the RC Church refuses to allow LGBT folk (baptized into that church while youngsters) leave the church even when they no longer believe/have any faith in it and want to leave it. How do you see that proportion of RCC members fitting into your view of catholicism and the vote?

No, Church doesn't have any power to allow or dissalow gay marriage. The role of the Church is to tell the truth about marriage. They just repeat the words of Jesus.

zielarz

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'm not sure it will have as big a change on sex education or adoption laws as you may think. Presumably children are already taught about homosexuality as part of their education and that should continue regardless of the outcome of the referendum. And I think it's no harm that children are taught that some children are raised by gay people, because that already happens, and will happen regardless of the outcome of the referendum. All that changes really is kids may be taught that gay couples can marry in the same way as a man and woman, which would be the reality of the situation if the referendum passes. BTW, I'm not entirely sure what the content of the RSE course is, so there may be specific changes to be made, but in general, things should stay the same.

Sure, teaching kids about homosexual relationships seems innocent but liberals/progressives will come up with something as they always do....

Let's say that group of so called experts comes up with an idea that it's very helpful for children to start masturbating early because that will help them to determine their sexual orientation. Would you support it? It will be of course mandatory, for every children. You think I am exaggerating? Read the WHO recommendation for Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe, you can download english version from
here. Page 40 clearly tells what 0-4 year olds should know about their sexuality.. quote:
"Give information about .. enjoyment and pleasure when touching one's own body, early childchood masturbation". Children sexualization is already happening, they just want your vote to take it to another level...

This vote is of enormous importance, not for homosexual people but for every single child that's going to be raised in Ireland.

marienbad

zielarz wrote: »

Sure, teaching kids about homosexual relationships seems innocent but liberals/progressives will come up with something as they always do....

Let's say that group of so called experts comes up with an idea that it's very helpful for children to start masturbating early because that will help them to determine their sexual orientation. Would you support it? It will be of course mandatory, for every children. You think I am exaggerating? Read the WHO recommendation for Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe, you can download english version from
here. Page 40 clearly tells what 0-4 year olds should know about their sexuality.. quote:
"Give information about .. enjoyment and pleasure when touching one's own body, early childchood masturbation". Children sexualization is already happening, they just want your vote to take it to another level...

This vote is of enormous importance, not for homosexual people but for every single child that's going to be raised in Ireland.

talk about fear and scaremongering !

Nodin

zielarz wrote: »

...............

This vote is of enormous importance, not for homosexual people but for every single child that's going to be raised in Ireland.

Why, might I ask?

NuMarvel

zielarz wrote: »

Sure, teaching kids about homosexual relationships seems innocent but liberals/progressives will come up with something as they always do....

Let's say that group of so called experts comes up with an idea that it's very helpful for children to start masturbating early because that will help them to determine their sexual orientation. Would you support it? It will be of course mandatory, for every children. You think I am exaggerating? Read the WHO recommendation for Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe, you can download english version from
here. Page 40 clearly tells what 0-4 year olds should know about their sexuality.. quote:
"Give information about .. enjoyment and pleasure when touching one's own body, early childchood masturbation". Children sexualization is already happening, they just want your vote to take it to another level...

This has no relevance to the debate on marriage. Whether or not gay people can marry, children will still be taught about homosexuality. And they will presumably be taught about how gay couples can formalise their relationship, be that through marriage, civil partnership, or whatever the case may be.

zielarz wrote: »

This vote is of enormous importance, not for homosexual people but for every single child that's going to be raised in Ireland.

On this we can agree. If the amendment is carried, it will finally mean all children have the potential to enjoy the benefits of being raised by married parents. Those benefits will no longer be needlessly restricted to children raised by heterosexual couples.

PopePalpatine

NuMarvel wrote: »

On this we can agree. If the amendment is carried, it will finally mean all children have the potential to enjoy the benefits of being raised by married parents. Those benefits will no longer be needlessly restricted to children raised by heterosexual couples.

Don't forget the inevitable decline in homophobic bullying as a result.

aloyisious

There is a tit in Texas from the GOP who think's that allowing gays marry will end in the increase in children born out of wedlock, and a draw on state revenue. He bases his opinion on the notion that straights will flee from marriage if we are allowed marry.

FreudianSlippers

aloyisious wrote: »

There is a tit in Texas from the GOP who think's that allowing gays marry will end in the increase in children born out of wedlock, and a draw on state revenue. He bases his opinion on the notion that straights will flee from marriage if we are allowed marry.

That's one of those "concerns" that has always boggled me. The only way it makes sense is if their train of thought is that there are so many secretly gay people in marriages to the opposite sex.

NuMarvel

aloyisious wrote: »

There is a tit in Texas from the GOP who think's that allowing gays marry will end in the increase in children born out of wedlock, and a draw on state revenue. He bases his opinion on the notion that straights will flee from marriage if we are allowed marry.

Something similar was said in Ireland and in the UK about decriminalising homosexuality. This is from the judgment in David Norris' Supreme Court challenge in 1984:

There is the effect of homosexuality on marriage. As long ago as 1957 the Wolfenden Committee acknowledged, in relation to Great Britain, the serious harm such conduct caused to marriage not only in turning men away from it as a partnership in life but also in breaking up existing marriages. That was the conclusion reached as to the state of facts before the criminal sanctions were removed. One can only suspect that, with the removal of such sanctions and with the encouragement thereby given to homosexual conduct, considerably more harm must have been caused in Great Britain to marriage as an institution. In Ireland, in this respect, the State has a particular duty. Article 41. s. 3, sub-s. 1, of the Constitution provides:- "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack." Surely, a law which prohibits acts and conduct by male citizens of a kind known to he particularly harmful to the institution of marriage cannot be regarded as inconsistent with a Constitution containing such a provision.

EDIT And after looking at the CSO's marriage rates, it appears that decriminalisation had no effect on marriage rates in Ireland. The biggest impact on marriage rates since 1994 (the year after decriminilisation) seems to have been the recession, unsurprisingly.

aloyisious

This is from the "The New Civil Rights Movement" page on facebook... http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/_an_earthquake_new_vatican_document_suggests_embracing_gifts_and_qualities_of_gay_people

This from the Irish Times: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/gay-people-have-gifts-to-offer-christian-community-1.1962002

aloyisious

Cardinal Burke has last word in this Tuesday report on Vatican Synod statements about the Pope and gay catholics orientation should be 'valued' and that they have 'gifts and qualities' to offer parishes - See more at: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/amid-backlash-conservative-catholics-vatican-backtracks-positive-report-gays141014#sthash.m0UwjBwY.dpuf

aloyisious

If you need a laugh, go to Pink News and have a look at the giant (80-foot) inflatable tree put up on Place Vendome in Paris.. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/10/17/giant-inflatable-christmas-tree-faces-protests-because-it-looks-like-a-sex-toy/

Can't get how no one copped the similarity (much), as a piece of art (subversion) it's as good as a piece by Banksy

aloyisious

Two sides of the one coin, The synod of bishops in Rome and Fr Gabriel Rosbotham. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fr-gabriel-is-more-than-his-sexuality-hes-a-cornerstone-of-our-parish-30674891.html

porsche959

aloyisious wrote: »

Particularly when it comes to persons of one faith claiming that marriages of other religions are not real marriages, that those of Christian faith are the only real marriages existing and should be the only ones recognized by the state. I'd imagine that that stated view would be insulting and offensive to other faiths.

Are you seriously suggesting that merely expressing the above points of view should be criminalised?

aloyisious

porsche959 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that merely expressing the above points of view should be criminalised?

I'm probably getting into/opening myself up to a meaningless sideshow here, but yes, if the expresser is well aware that the likely end result of the words used will be violent disorder. I reckon that a lot of Christian and other faith belief see the statements of some preachers in islam as being provocative to the extent of causing violent disorder. Ditto some statements by Jewish religious leaders. We all should know by now that religion is a very inflammatory issue amongst the faithful of each religion and be careful of statements made in regard of them.

Anyone who takes the time to prepare a speech, statement or sermon does so knowing the intent of the words used is to have a causal-effect on the audience. Claiming afterwards "I didn't realise that my words would incite violence between the audience and persons of the same faith/other faiths" is a lie. Any speaker/preacher worth his/her salt know's words can break bones.

If you want, you can ignore my two para's above and just answer this question: would you allow anyone in the present day to make sermons and statements of the kind made by Ian Paisley about people of other faiths in his heyday without being made liable for the end-effect?

Black Swan

aloyisious wrote: »

http://goo.gl/HR1r9P

MOD WARNING: Please read charter. This forum is not a newsdump...from other sites. All OP's and posts require some input of your own.

gizmo555

If the referendum on gay marriage isn't passed, it's this kind of intolerant "the people have no right to do wrong" attitude by campaigners for gay marriage backed up by the NI Equality Commission and their counterparts in this part of Ireland which will have caused it.

The North’s Equality Commission is taking a civil action against Ashers Baking Company in Northern Ireland for refusing to bake a cake for a customer promoting same sex marriage, it has confirmed.

The commission in a letter to the company which employs 62 people said it would initiate legal proceedings against Ashers unless it acknowledged that it was in breach of equality legislation and unless it paid compensation.

Ashers in turn accused the Equality Commission of engaging in a “David and Goliath” action against the company because as a Christian bakery it “in conscience” would not bake the cake for a customer.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ni-bakers-to-face-civil-action-for-refusing-gay-cake-order-1.1990595

marienbad

gizmo555 wrote: »

If the referendum on gay marriage isn't passed, it's this kind of intolerant "the people have no right to do wrong" attitude by campaigners for gay marriage backed up by the NI Equality Commission and their counterparts in this part of Ireland which will have caused it.

The North’s Equality Commission is taking a civil action against Ashers Baking Company in Northern Ireland for refusing to bake a cake for a customer promoting same sex marriage, it has confirmed.

The commission in a letter to the company which employs 62 people said it would initiate legal proceedings against Ashers unless it acknowledged that it was in breach of equality legislation and unless it paid compensation.

Ashers in turn accused the Equality Commission of engaging in a “David and Goliath” action against the company because as a Christian bakery it “in conscience” would not bake the cake for a customer.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ni-bakers-to-face-civil-action-for-refusing-gay-cake-order-1.1990595

No it won't , it will be because intolerant bakers and others voted no . How can you have equal rights by denying equal rights ?

Fr Tod Umptious

gizmo555 wrote: »

If the referendum on gay marriage isn't passed, it's this kind of intolerant "the people have no right to do wrong" attitude by campaigners for gay marriage backed up by the NI Equality Commission and their counterparts in this part of Ireland which will have caused it.

The North’s Equality Commission is taking a civil action against Ashers Baking Company in Northern Ireland for refusing to bake a cake for a customer promoting same sex marriage, it has confirmed.

The commission in a letter to the company which employs 62 people said it would initiate legal proceedings against Ashers unless it acknowledged that it was in breach of equality legislation and unless it paid compensation.

Ashers in turn accused the Equality Commission of engaging in a “David and Goliath” action against the company because as a Christian bakery it “in conscience” would not bake the cake for a customer.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ni-bakers-to-face-civil-action-for-refusing-gay-cake-order-1.1990595

Exactly

This sort of action by the LGBT campaigners in question is something that would put fence sitters like me to consider the No side.

There are probably a hundred bakeries in NI that this group could have got to bake their cake without a fuss, but instead they set out to bully a small company that they knew full well you have problems with it.

Shame on them.

marienbad

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Exactly

This sort of action by the LGBT campaigners in question is something that would put fence sitters like me to consider the No side.

There are probably a hundred bakeries in NI that this group could have got to bake their cake without a fuss, but instead they set out to bully a small company that they knew full well you have problems with it.

Shame on them.

Rubbish - would you have said the same if it was catholic iconography on a cake that was requested on the cake and was refused ?

Fr Tod Umptious

marienbad wrote: »

Rubbish - would you have said the same if it was catholic iconography on a cake that was requested on the cake and was refused ?

Of course I would and I'd ask the same question

Why would someone go to a bakery to get a cake baked with catholic iconography when they know it would not be acceptable to the baker, other than to cause a fuss ?

marienbad

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Of course I would and I'd ask the same question

Why would someone go to a bakery to get a cake baked with catholic iconography when they know it would not be acceptable to the baker, other than to cause a fuss ?

So would it be ok for a bank to refuse a loan to a gay person or a catholic solely because they were gay or catholic , or even -God forbid - a gay catholic ?

Fr Tod Umptious

marienbad wrote: »

So would it be ok for a bank to refuse a loan to a gay person or a catholic solely because they were gay or catholic , or even -God forbid - a gay catholic ?

You are being silly now

How would the bank know a persons religion or sexual preferences, and what would a customer request from a bank that would promote their religion or sexual preferences ?

But in this case a LGBT organisation want a bakery that they know does not agree with same sex marriage to bake a cake that promotes same sex marriage

Why did the LGBT organisation not go to another bakery to get their cake baked ?