Gay Cake Controversy!

donkeykong5

DeVore wrote: »

Serve the b*tch her chicken,
Bake the f*cking cake,
Write the goddamned marriage cert,
Do your f*cking job.

This isnt hard.

And always remember PCBRIGADE PROTECTED SNOWFLAKES must be kept happy at all costs especially in IRELAND.

Billy86

donkeykong5 wrote: »

And always remember PCBRIGADE PROTECTED SNOWFLAKES must be kept happy at all costs especially in IRELAND.

You're right, ertainly does seem to be a few of our usual snowflake right wingers triggered by this. Poor little things.

Hande hoche!

The owner stepped down as director from a local business group.

http://www.thenews-gazette.com/content/wilkinson-steps-down-msl-director

7aubzxk43m2sni

DeVore wrote: »

Serve the b*tch her chicken,
Bake the f*cking cake,
Write the goddamned marriage cert,
Do your f*cking job.

This isnt hard.

Not really that simple though either.

DredFX

The Colorado guy is in trouble again, this time for refusing to bake a cake celebrating a gender transition.

Outlaw Pete

DeVore wrote: »

Serve the b*tch her chicken,
Bake the f*cking cake,
Write the goddamned marriage cert,
Do your f*cking job.

This isnt hard.

And Twitter and Facebook?

Shouldn't they just then 'Provide the fucking platform!

pleas advice

DredFX wrote: »

The Colorado guy is in trouble again, this time for refusing to bake a cake celebrating a gender transition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6Hp7gH-n7g#t=250

skooterblue2

DeVore wrote: »

Serve the b*tch her chicken,
Bake the f*cking cake,
Write the goddamned marriage cert,
Do your f*cking job.

This isnt hard.

Shunt the carriage full jews and couple it to the train engine,
Write the list full of gypsies for the relocation plan
pick out the autistic newborns in the hospital to be sent to the "new" hospital
Pack the wagon full of blanket from the influenza hospital for the Indian reservation
Do your f*cking job.

This isn't hard.

DeVore

Completely false equivalence.

In Nazi germany it was illegal to do what the nazis did and they people involved should have refused to comply.

In my examples the services are legal and are the obligation of the public limited entities to offer them for trade to all (or in the case of the marriage license, to obey the order of the courts as a court appointed official).

In short, refusing to comply with or be part of an illegal action is justified.
Refusing to service a group of people because of your personal opinions of them, is not.

Peregrinus

DeVore wrote: »

Completely false equivalence.

In Nazi germany it was illegal to do what the nazis did . . .

It was not.

In the Nazi view of things, the foundation of all law was the fuhrerprinzip - political authority flows not from the people, or even from the nation, but from the leader. Early on in their regime, they gave effect to this through the "Enabling Act" of 1934, a constitutional amendment which said, in effect, that laws could be made not only by the Reichstag, but by the Reich government, expressed in the declarations and directives of the Reich Chancellor, and that laws made in this way would prevail over laws made by the Reichstag, and wouild have the effect of revoking or amending them as necessary.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that if the Fuhrer, or someone acting on the authority of the Fuhrer, tells you to do something, that's a law, and it trumps any inconsistent law which may have been enacted by the Reichstag.

Legal scholars mostly analyse this as the collapse of the rule of law in Germany; the government could do what it wanted, with no supervision or accountability to courts, parliament or citizens. That's not law at all; that's just brute force. If you take this view then what the Nazis did wasn't illegal in Germany, because there was no law in Germany.

If you take a less theoretical view, then what they did wasn't illegal because it was legalised by being enshrined in a government command, which had the force of law because the Constitution had been amended to say that it did.

ittakestwo

That backery owner is a tit. Glad to see he will lose a **** load of money on legal bills.

If you are opening a business on the High Street except the people on it and don't be an arsehole.

7aubzxk43m2sni

ittakestwo wrote: »

That backery owner is a tit. Glad to see he will lose a **** load of money on legal bills.

If you are opening a business on the High Street except the people on it and don't be an arsehole.

It's the cake he had an issue with, not the people.

ittakestwo

Harvey Slimy Doorknob wrote: »

It's the cake he had an issue with, not the people.

weak argument. No surprises no judge is entertaining that defence

7aubzxk43m2sni

ittakestwo wrote: »

weak argument. No surprises no judge is entertaining that defence

Explain how it's a weak argument?

He didn't refuse to serve a gay customer. He refused to make a cake which said "Support Gay Marriage". They're two very different things.

ittakestwo

Harvey Slimy Doorknob wrote: »

Explain how it's a weak argument?

He didn't refuse to serve a gay customer. He refused to make a cake which said "Support Gay Marriage". They're two very different things.

Because by implication he is discriminating against the person gay lifestyle.

If you say well I don't belive I should make a cake for a gay marriage because I am supporting something that is against my religion believes.

I could also say I don't want to employ a women as it is against my religious believes that she should work outside home and I don't want to support that.....


Believe what you want at home but don't take it to the highsteet.

NuMarvel

Harvey Slimy Doorknob wrote: »

Explain how it's a weak argument?

He didn't refuse to serve a gay customer. He refused to make a cake which said "Support Gay Marriage". They're two very different things.

Gee, no one's said anything like this in the thread before... :rolleyes:

This has all been done to death at this point. The long and the short of it is that four judges across two courts have found this to be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And they heard all the facts, not just the ones that made it into the press.

Jack Moore

DeVore wrote: »

Completely false equivalence.

In Nazi germany it was illegal to do what the nazis did and they people involved should have refused to comply.

In my examples the services are legal and are the obligation of the public limited entities to offer them for trade to all (or in the case of the marriage license, to obey the order of the courts as a court appointed official).

In short, refusing to comply with or be part of an illegal action is justified.
Refusing to service a group of people because of your personal opinions of them, is not.

If I’m not gay but I order a gay cake and the baker refuses to bake it is the assumption he refused me or the product?

dxhound2005

ittakestwo wrote: »

Because by implication he is discriminating against the person gay lifestyle.

If you say well I don't belive I should make a cake for a gay marriage because I am supporting something that is against my religion believes.

I could also say I don't want to employ a women as it is against my religious believes that she should work outside home and I don't want to support that.....


Believe what you want at home but don't take it to the highsteet.

You could also say that I am supporting the law of the land which outlaws gay marriage. Which means that every baker would have to put that message on a cake if requested. Something like "Keep Gay Marriage out of Northern Ireland"

Of course it would take some Free Presbyterian types to discover a baker with a "gay lifestyle" to target, in the same way that Queer Space chose their target.

NuMarvel

dxhound2005 wrote: »

...in the same way that Queer Space chose their target.

Evidence please. And actual evidence, not circumstance, coincidence, or whataboutery.

dxhound2005

NuMarvel wrote: »

Evidence please. And actual evidence, not circumstance, coincidence, or whataboutery.

It is a tactic long in use by activists in America. Queer Space did not invent it.

Also they got another baker to make the cake, the one we saw pictures of. They could have approached that baker first.

NuMarvel

dxhound2005 wrote: »

It is a tactic long in use by activists in America. Queer Space did not invent it.

So no evidence. There's a word for making judgements about people in the absence of any evidence whatsoever.

dxhound2005

Would a baker in NI with a gay lifestyle be legally entitled to refuse to put this message on a cake?

Keep Gay Marriage out of Northern Ireland.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Jack Moore wrote: »

If I’m not gay but I order a gay cake and the baker refuses to bake it is the assumption he refused me or the product?

Genuinely good question. Does anyone know the answer?

ittakestwo

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You could also say that I am supporting the law of the land which outlaws gay marriage. Which means that every baker would have to put that message on a cake if requested. Something like "Keep Gay Marriage out of Northern Ireland"

Of course it would take some Free Presbyterian types to discover a baker with a "gay lifestyle" to target, in the same way that Queer Space chose their target.

But a political statement that does not imply/encourage a criminal act is not against "The of the land".

Unless the bakery had a sign on the window saying no political messages then they may have been able to terminate the contract to bake the cake as it was against their terms of engagement. But I can't see how they can refuse the contract on a political statement that is not illegal to say when there was no notice that political messages were not accepted.

If someone says "support gay marriage in Northern Ireland" they have committed no crime even tho currently it's not possible by law.

D3V!L

Jack Moore wrote: »

If I’m not gay but I order a gay cake and the baker refuses to bake it is the assumption he refused me or the product?

Very good point, you could be ordering it for a friend who's marrying his same sex partner.

7aubzxk43m2sni

D3V!L wrote: »

Very good point, you could be ordering it for a friend who's marrying his same sex partner.

I think the distinction between "Happy (Gay) Wedding Day" and "Support Gay Marriage" on the cake is important to remember

conorhal

Here's an interesting conundrum for both sides of the divide.
It started with 'bake the cake' but now we have 'wax my lady balls!'

https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/transgender-woman-files-human-rights-complaint-against-windsor-spa

Here we have a human rights complaint against a Canadian spa were a Muslim woman refused to bikini wax a trans-woman's lady tackle.

7aubzxk43m2sni

conorhal wrote: »

Here's an interesting conundrum for both sides of the divide.
It started with 'bake the cake' but now we have 'wax my lady balls!'

https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/transgender-woman-files-human-rights-complaint-against-windsor-spa

Here wehave a human right complaint against a Canadian spa were a Muslim woman refused to bikini wax a trans-woman's lady tackle.

Scary stuff. I don't see any grey area here - they don't wax balls, simple as. I'll give up home if the court rules against the spa.

Jack Moore

Harvey Slimy Doorknob wrote: »

I think the distinction between "Happy (Gay) Wedding Day" and "Support Gay Marriage" on the cake is important to remember

Well what if I ordered it to show I support them, maybe it’s a surprise cake to take to their engagement party.

Billy86

It's amazing sometimes, the threads that manage to keep going for over four fecking years.

victor8600

Harvey Slimy Doorknob wrote: »

Scary stuff. I don't see any grey area here - they don't wax balls, simple as. I'll give up home if the court rules against the spa.

Which charity are you planning to support with the sale of your home?

PlaneSpeeking

Harvey Slimy Doorknob wrote: »

Scary stuff. I don't see any grey area here - they don't wax balls, simple as. I'll give up home if the court rules against the spa.

Depends how old he is ?






SORRY!!

PlaneSpeeking

victor8600 wrote: »

Which charity are you planning to support with the sale of your home?

The Campaign for the Reintroduction of Common ****ing Sense

donkeykong5

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

victor8600 wrote: »

Which charity are you planning to support with the sale of your home?

The Campaign for the Reintroduction of Common ****ing Sense

Pcbrigade have taken over the bloody world.

AllForIt

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Pcbrigade have taken over the bloody world.

Well at least it's better than Hitler's Germany. Better at taking over the whole world too.

NuMarvel

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Pcbrigade have taken over the bloody world.

You can blame Apple for that. If they'd priced Macs more competitively, PCs wouldn't have become as ubiquitous as they did.

Lil Sally Anne Jnr.

Conversation is borderline ludicrous. You should never be compelled by law to print political slogans or phrases that go against your conscience. It's called thinking for yourself.

dxhound2005

Lil Sally Anne Jnr. wrote: »

Conversation is borderline ludicrous. You should never be compelled by law to print political slogans or phrases that go against your conscience. It's called thinking for yourself.

The Attorney General of Northern Ireland, the highest legal officer there, has come on board with the appeal against the court decision. So there is some expectation that sense will prevail, and the final outcome will be in line with your thinking.

NuMarvel

Lil Sally Anne Jnr. wrote: »

Conversation is borderline ludicrous. You should never be compelled by law to print political slogans or phrases that go against your conscience. It's called thinking for yourself.

Similarly, you can't use conscience to justify illegal discrimination. If you operate a business, then it's fair for the public to assume that you will treat everyone equally. That didn't happen in this case.

gozunda

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The Attorney General of Northern Ireland, the highest legal officer there, has come on board with the appeal against the court decision. So there is some expectation that sense will prevail, and the final outcome will be in line with your thinking.

Haha you're incorrigible! Is that the self same attorney general Mr Larkin - who doesn't get to decide the appeal - rather the case is the remit of the judges of the Supreme Court judges hearing the case .

What will it take to see sense lol?

dxhound2005

Sense has prevailed.

Graces7

ittakestwo wrote: »

Because by implication he is discriminating against the person gay lifestyle.

If you say well I don't belive I should make a cake for a gay marriage because I am supporting something that is against my religion believes.

I could also say I don't want to employ a women as it is against my religious believes that she should work outside home and I don't want to support that.....


Believe what you want at home but don't take it to the highsteet.

By demanding a cake motto he knew would deeply offend the baker? Pot, kettle black? and the customer is the initiator. Persecution...

BoJack Horseman

Sensible.

https://twitter.com/Deborah_utv/status/1049948278836654080

golfball37

Well done Supreme Court. Common sense prevails. Travesty it had to come to this but fair play to aschers for defending personal freedoms. The people owe you a pint.

Gael23

European courts next?

Cody montana

Gael23 wrote: »

European courts next?

Hopefully.

Beta Ray Bill

Gael23 wrote: »

European courts next?

I think it's important to remind people that this is over a £500 fine.

Supreme Court is enough, I wouldn't fancy those legal bills to be honest.

7aubzxk43m2sni

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-court-backs-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


You'd have to wonder why the guardian insist on calling it a "gay wedding cake" when that's not what it is?

banie01

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Sensible.

https://twitter.com/Deborah_utv/status/1049948278836654080

golfball37 wrote: »

Well done Supreme Court. Common sense prevails. Travesty it had to come to this but fair play to aschers for defending personal freedoms. The people owe you a pint.

Harvey Slimy Doorknob wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-court-backs-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


You'd have to wonder why the guardian insist on calling it a "gay wedding cake" when that's not what it is?

Probably keep calling it a "wedding cake" to stoke the controversy and make it relevant.
I'm delighted to see common sense applied in this case.
The right to freedom of speech in their refusal to make the cake, is just as valid as the right to service.
The attempt to "make an example" of the Ashers has failed.

I am not a fan of dogma of any shade, and in particular of the religious variety but the right to conscientously object to providing a service at odds with ones personally held belief is a right worth upholding.

BoJack Horseman

Harvey Slimy Doorknob wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-court-backs-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


You'd have to wonder why the guardian insist on calling it a "gay wedding cake" when that's not what it is?

In the Graun's fantasy world, cake can have a sexual orientation.
Cake can probably have a gender as well.