Christian Family face possible legal action

Tolerant heathens though, eh

Tolerant of being insulted? I should hope not! Get off your high horse Bags. You know it's a false one.

Of course it was judgmental. And insulting. If not then perhaps she will explain why she considers the use of the term 'Christian Church' lazy? And why, when jingl did me the courtesy of answering my query she chose to describe that as 'risible'.

I'd be interests to hear an explanation, then perhaps the thread can return to the debate.

You weren't insulted, jings; your comment was. Valid criticism whether you agree with the criticism or not, so no need to feel insulted. Annoyed, maybe, cross even, but not insulted.

Talking of horses, I'm off out to deal with some hay.

I'm just not going to answer that Bags. Enjoy your hay making. Or whatever it is you intend to do with the hay. I'm off to town for lovely some retail therapy.

Why does the phrase 'thought police' spring to mind.
Weren't the boarding house people exonerated at appeal?

I'm not sure if they were exonerated, Galen, I think they did not have to pay the full damages and costs but I may be wrong.

The judge did say recently that she thought she had made the wrong judgement ..... Too late for the B&B owners whose business was wrecked and probably their health too!

Why do I feel that some people who complain of being victimised or discriminated against often do not come over as distressed, rather as smug, self-satisfied and eager for the publicity?
Just an observation.

galen, in what way are the bakery directors' thoughts being policed? They are perfectly free to think and believe whatever they like, but not necessarily free to impose the rules that those thoughts spell for them on other people who have different thoughts and different beliefs.

Saying you cannot provide a cake decoration for someone because you think they are connected to activity you disapprove of is the policing bit. They could easily point out their lack of endorsement of whatever exactly it is that they disapprove of and still provide a cake, especially as providing cake (for dosh) is what their business is for.

It is tricky though. That lack of endorsement approach would not work in all situations.

^Why do I feel that some people who complain of being victimised or discriminated against often do not come over as distressed, rather as smug, self-satisfied and eager for the publicity?
Just an observation.^

And it is often a justified observation rosequartz - I too think it is sometimes about publicity for a cause or someone's 15 minutes of fame.

There used to be signs in many establishments at one time stating 'the management reserves the right to refuse (insert whichever service)' - is that no longer applicable?

re deletions. do please click here

Sorry it's small. Would make it much bigger if I knew how.

I think it is still applicable but not on account of someone's race, disability, age or sexual orientation, as janea has already pointed out up thread. The bakery's refusal is being seen by some as a refusal on account of the supposed sexual orientation either of the cake orderer or of the people who would eat the cake.

At least, that's my understanding of the situation.

And I feel that bakers have no business making suppositions or judgments about, or of refusing to provide cakes for other people's supposed sexual orientations during their business transactions.

Privately, anyone can object to various aspects of sexual orientation, but their objections should not be observable in public life because that is plain prejudice. A bakery shop open to the public is not private. It's for the public exchange of cakes and money, not the business owner's views on sexual orientation (or race, or religion, or disability). I think the fundamental reason for this proviso is because none of those things are harmful to society; they simply exist. No-one forces anyone to like these things if they choose not to, or if they think they have religious reasons not to, but the law says keep your dislike to yourself in public and, if there are certain kinds of people you don't want to associate with on a business footing, then don't run a business that runs on making exchanges with any kind of person who happens along.

Wed, 27 Nov 2013

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by the owners of a guest house after they had been found guilty of discrimination against a gay couple who wanted to stay in a double room.
The court rejected a legal challenge by Peter and Hazelmary Bull who turned away civil partners Martin Hall and Steven Preddy, from their Chymorvah Hotel near Penzance in 2008. The Bulls' claimed they had a policy of not allowing unmarried couples of whatever sex to share double bed rooms, but NSS council member Ray Newton said that he had shared such a room with his (opposite sex) partner at the hotel – even though they aren't married. There was never any question asked about their marital status, even though they signed the register with different surnames.

thatbags

I understand what you are saying but part of me does feel sympathy for religious people who do struggle with this aspect of society.

I feel sympathy for them too, hollyd, but I still think they should keep their disapproval out of their business transactions. Imagine if it had been the other way round and a gay person refused to deal with a Christian, or other religious person, because they didn't like some of the things associated with the religion, or because they disapproved of a religious slogan that was asked for as part of the deal. There'd be an outcry, and quite rightly.

So who does the business belong to Bags? The family, the law courts, or the state? Surely people can still have the right to decide for themselves who they trade with so long as it's not discrimination with no good reason, ie colour or race. Police state otherwise.

I don't think there would, bags. A trader can refuse to sell or provide a service to anyone except those protected by equality legislation. In any case, they did not refuse to make the cake, only to put on the slogan. I don't think you should be required to make a political statement with which you do not agree.

I agree that people shouldn't have to make political statements with which they don't agree. But the bakery could have printed the required words without an endorsement. I'm not saying they should have, just that such a thing would have saved them all the bother that seems to have blown up. Printing a slogan for someone else's use is not quite the same as saying it yourself. It could be interpreted asa close thing, and often is, but it's not the same, and I think that difference is significant.

I guess if the bakery was not so successful they might have printed the blasted slogan because they needed the business but, at the same time, made their non-endorsement of it public.

jings, the business owners obviously own the business and can choose who to do business with, or not as the case may be so long as the refusal is never because of, among other things, the sexual orientation of their prospective customers. Being gay is a sexual orientation and that's why this issue became newsworthy... well, news anyway whether worthy or not.

Though, to be honest, it's hard to imagine ordering a party cake at a bakery shop that makes and sells such things and being turned down because the wording you wanted was not liked.

I wonder if the cake eaters would have known who made the cake?

The law is being made into even more of an ass than it always has been. People need to be able to run their lives according to their own consciences. They should n't be legislating for everything.

The bakery might do a roaring trade in christening cakes in the future (if they don't go out of business if they get a hefty fine).

I just find it sad that people may be forced out of business because of their religious beliefs.
Is anyone testing the faith of of other religions in this way, or are we going back to olden days when Christians were persecuted for their beliefs.
They'll be bringing in the lions the next thing we know.

Is it possible to be a printer of books one disapproves of and still retain one's religious beliefs?

The baker was not asked to relinquish his beliefs. He was asked to print something for someone else's use. He doesn't have to agree to what the words say to be able to print the words. What if the design required were in Kanji and the baker couldn't read it? I bet he'd do it.

It's the baker who's doing the discriminating between gay customers or customers who support gay marriage and everyone else.

I do agree with a lot of what you say Bags, but I can't get past the feeling that matters of religion or/and conscience shouldn't be legislated for.