Faith and Religion

[VladimirIlyich]

1 hour ago, Captain Turdseye said:

My five year old came home from school all excited for Easter because Jesus was coming back to life. Had to put her straight. 

Well,we've got the Holy Spirit at Wolves.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Praise the Lord for the gift of genocidal weapons!

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/campaigners-blast-plan-service-marking-14202366

 

https://cnduk.org/cnd-condemns-westminster-abbey-nuclear-weapons-thanksgiving-service/

 

And a Blessed Easter to one and all!

[VladimirIlyich]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Praise the Lord for the gift of genocidal weapons!

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/campaigners-blast-plan-service-marking-14202366

 

https://cnduk.org/cnd-condemns-westminster-abbey-nuclear-weapons-thanksgiving-service/

 

And a Blessed Easter to one and all!

That Gavin Williamson twat looks the archetype tory cunt.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Praise the Lord for the gift of genocidal weapons!

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/campaigners-blast-plan-service-marking-14202366

 

https://cnduk.org/cnd-condemns-westminster-abbey-nuclear-weapons-thanksgiving-service/

 

And a Blessed Easter to one and all!

 

[Dougie Do'ins]

Just wondering what peoples thought are on this.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49350891

 

In short, a Christian bakery refused to bake and sell a cake that promotes same sex marriage. The case has already gone through two court cases and is now set to to go the to the European Courts of Human Rights.

 

[Pureblood]

8 minutes ago, Dougie Do'ins said:

Just wondering what peoples thought are on this.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49350891

 

In short, a Christian bakery refused to bake and sell a cake that promotes same sex marriage. The case has already gone through two court cases and is now set to to go the to the European Courts of Human Rights.

 

I want the bakery to lose because it will annoy Daily Mail readers and Leave voters.

[Dougie Do'ins]

12 minutes ago, TK421 said:

I want the bakery to lose because it will annoy Daily Mail readers and Leave voters.

I genuinely couldn't give a shit either way. 

[Ne Moe Imya]

1 hour ago, Dougie Do'ins said:

Just wondering what peoples thought are on this.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49350891

 

In short, a Christian bakery refused to bake and sell a cake that promotes same sex marriage. The case has already gone through two court cases and is now set to to go the to the European Courts of Human Rights.

 

I think that we have to be really, really careful before we go down this road where we force everyone to believe the same things.

 

The American version of this from a few years ago basically came down, legally speaking, to whether the baker was protected by free speech laws to allow him his own artistic expression on the cakes he baked, or whether the couple who ordered the cake was protected by non-discrimination laws. In that case, the baker showed that he was happy to make cakes for LGBTQ people, and had done many times, but that he objected to being forced to participate in a ceremony that violated his religious conscience.

 

It appears that with the cake order in question, this cake was intended to do exactly the same thing. It's not even a wedding cake, just a message specifically supporting gay marriage.

 

Most of you will disagree with the baker's objections, but to me that's beside the point. I think he should have the right to decline to print orders he finds morally distasteful. I would imagine he would do the same if someone came in and ordered a swastika cake, or whatever. I would say the same no matter what it was - if a Muslim baker refused to put a star of David on a cake, or any similar situation, then that's fine by me. I would just tell the customer that they should go order it somewhere else.

 

It would obviously be a completely different matter if the business were refusing to serve any LGBTQ person at all, but since it seems they were happy to let him order a different cake, the objection was simply to decorating that particular cake.

[Rico1304]

Good post that.  I’ve been convinced by all arguments in the past, they should have to make the cake, no one should be forced to do something they don’t want to do, let the market decide.  I’m a big supporter of LGBT rights after years of catholic indoctrination as a kid so my natural reaction is they must make the cake, but then I don’t want to be forced to do something. It’s a fucking difficult one for sure.   

[aRdja]

I don’t think they should be forced to bake a cake they don’t want to bake... but I hope they don’t breed. 

[Pureblood]

You can't compare a pro gay marriage message to a Swastika.  And the customer is always right.

[s(k)aturation]

1 hour ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

they should go order it somewhere else.

 

Is perhaps the simplest solution.

 

Are morally uncomfortable with my being a perfectly legitimate customer?  No worries, I'll spend my money elsewhere.

 

[Dougie Do'ins]

3 minutes ago, TK421 said:

You can't compare a pro gay marriage message to a Swastika.  And the customer is always right.

I don't think he was comparing it in the way you suggest.

 

[Bjornebye]

If the Baker didn’t feel right doing it then it’s his right to say no. On the flip side thought the last thing you want do is piss off the LGBT community.  Oh hell no sister. 

[Pureblood]

7 minutes ago, Dougie Do'ins said:

I don't think he was comparing it in the way you suggest.

 

Let's ask him; @Ne Moe Imya, in what way were you comparing a Swastika to a pro gay marriage message?  It seems distasteful to me.

 

Also the slippery slope argument  that it will "force everyone to believe the same thing" seems spurious.  A worse slippery slope would be to set a precedent which would enable businesses to pick and choose who they can serve based upon discriminatory practices.  

[Dougie Do'ins]

6 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Let's ask him; @Ne Moe Imya, in what way were you comparing a Swastika to a pro gay marriage message?  It seems distasteful to me.

 

Also the slippery slope argument  that it will "force everyone to believe the same thing" seems spurious.  A worse slippery slope would be to set a precedent which would enable businesses to pick and choose who they can serve based upon discriminatory practices.  

Slippery slope indeed. It's yet another case of an age old belief system clashing with a modern world.

 

TBH and each to their own but I was a little surprised it gone all the way to the ECHRs.  

[Ne Moe Imya]

18 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Let's ask him; @Ne Moe Imya, in what way were you comparing a Swastika to a pro gay marriage message?  It seems distasteful to me.

 

Also the slippery slope argument  that it will "force everyone to believe the same thing" seems spurious.  A worse slippery slope would be to set a precedent which would enable businesses to pick and choose who they can serve based upon discriminatory practices.  

We completely agree that the business can NEVER be allowed to pick and choose whom they serve; surely that part of my post was crystal clear.

 

The business in question, however, has stated that they have no problem doing business with LGBTQ people. They would happily make them a birthday cake, for example. Their issue is simply with being forced to participate (and here we must be very clear - the decoration of a cake is an artistic act, according to this argument, not simply a sale of a neutral product).

 

The swastika argument was just to crystalise it in our minds here. Obviously a message promoting gay marriage is not morally equivalent to a swastika in the worldview of any of us reading this. My point was to help understand what we're saying when we say that the baker has to participate, regardless of his/her religious beliefs or worldview.

 

Imagine that you worked in a flower shop, and someone came in wanting you to make a tasteful arrangement that they could take to the Aryan Brotherhood meeting they were going to, in Nazi colors of red and white carnations with black ribbons. I think all of us would refuse, correct? As in, you might be happy to make the arrangement, but as soon as they tell you what it's for and what it symbolises, then I think we all know how we would react. I would personally throw them out of my shop.

[Pureblood]

6 minutes ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

We completely agree that the business can NEVER be allowed to pick and choose whom they serve; surely that part of my post was crystal clear.

 

The business in question, however, has stated that they have no problem doing business with LGBTQ people. They would happily make them a birthday cake, for example. Their issue is simply with being forced to participate (and here we must be very clear - the decoration of a cake is an artistic act, according to this argument, not simply a sale of a neutral product).

 

The swastika argument was just to crystalise it in our minds here. Obviously a message promoting gay marriage is not morally equivalent to a swastika in the worldview of any of us reading this. My point was to help understand what we're saying when we say that the baker has to participate, regardless of his/her religious beliefs or worldview.

 

Imagine that you worked in a flower shop, and someone came in wanting you to make a tasteful arrangement that they could take to the Aryan Brotherhood meeting they were going to, in Nazi colors of red and white carnations with black ribbons. I think all of us would refuse, correct? As in, you might be happy to make the arrangement, but as soon as they tell you what it's for and what it symbolises, then I think we all know how we would react. I would personally throw them out of my shop.

I don't think the situation in your last paragraph is comparable to the facts of this case.

 

I think the concern is that businesses would interpret the precedent set by this case to widen discriminatory practices.

 

They should have just baked the cake, it would have saved them a whole load of hassle.

[Dougie Do'ins]

2 minutes ago, TK421 said:

I don't think the situation in your last paragraph is comparable to the facts of this case.

 

I think the concern is that businesses would interpret the precedent set by this case to widen discriminatory practices.

 

They should have just baked the cake, it would have saved them a whole load of hassle.

In an ideal world yes, but they think it goes against their religious teachings.

[Pureblood]

2 minutes ago, Dougie Do'ins said:

In an ideal world yes, but they think it goes against their religious teachings.

Their religious teachings are discriminatory.  Their customers shouldn't have to tolerate this.

[Ne Moe Imya]

9 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Their religious teachings are discriminatory.  Their customers shouldn't have to tolerate this.

So your worldview disagrees with theirs, no?

 

Who gets to decide whose worldview is right? The state? And what punishment do they mete out to those who disagree?

 

I'm telling you, mate, that way lies madness. Everyone thinks their way of looking at the world is the right one. Unless we tolerate each other's differences, the only other solution is at the end of a gun.

 

In my opinion, we can force them to serve every customer as an equal, no problem. But we cross the line when we tell someone they have to participate in something they find morally repugnant.

[Pureblood]

15 minutes ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

Who gets to decide whose worldview is right? The state? And what punishment do they mete out to those who disagree?

 

I'm telling you, mate, that way lies madness. Everyone thinks their way of looking at the world is the right one. Unless we tolerate each other's differences, the only other solution is at the end of a gun.

 

In my opinion, we can force them to serve every customer as an equal, no problem. But we cross the line when we tell someone they have to participate in something they find morally repugnant.

The elected government of the day get to decide, with recourse to the courts if necessary.  In this instance, the ECHR.  The punishment will be a fine and a whopping legal bill, I would imagine, and the stigma of having their name dragged through the media.

 

How is decorating a cake participating?  It's not, is it?  It's decorating a cake.  This is classic indirect discrimination, pure and simple, in my view.  Similar to an employer banning e.g. the wearing of a crucifix.  The rule applies to everyone, but it would disproportionately affect Christians.  Same thing here.

[VladimirIlyich]

4 minutes ago, TK421 said:

The elected government of the day get to decide, with recourse to the courts if necessary.  In this instance, the ECHR.  The punishment will be a fine and a whopping legal bill, I would imagine, and the stigma of having their name dragged through the media.

 

How is decorating a cake participating?  It's not, is it?  It's decorating a cake.  This is classic indirect discrimination, pure and simple, in my view.  Similar to an employer banning e.g. the wearing of a crucifix.  The rule applies to everyone, but it would disproportionately affect Christians.  Same thing here.

I wouldn't decorate a cake that featured the front page of a certain rag,or even another particular sports team or teams. I'd just tell them to go elsewhere.

[Pureblood]

1 minute ago, VladimirIlyich said:

I wouldn't decorate a cake that featured the front page of a certain rag

S*n readers don't benefit from a protected characteristic pursuant to anti-discrimination legislation.  Homosexual people do. You would be allowed to refuse to decorate that cake because it doesn't discriminate against a protected characteristic.