Homophobia? or their business, their right?

Scroll to see replies

Jesus, I give up ... I don't need to find your direct quote because someone else has done.

Sexual identity = sexual orientation = sexuality

That's all you need to know.

Sexual orientation: the direction of individuals' sexual longings and or fantasies and attractions toward a male/female partner, including asexual and demisexual attractions (lack of, or partial, sexual attractions).

Sexual identity: self-recognition of one’s sexual orientation and sexual behaviours and the meanings one places on them.

You tried tho.

Reply 61

ForgetMe

Both parties did a wrong thing. It feels ridiculous that bakers act like they are victims and mention being harassed but didn't they do it first by refusing to make a cake.. it's not like they asked to bake a cake of a shape of vagina or anything :facepalm:

The lesbian couple should have found another bakery and left these cave people alone in their religious bakery :erm:

However, on another note, at least people became aware of the issue and finally something has been done. It's sad that this is still happening.. This is like banning women from menswear shops and vice versa..

Reply 62

james22

Original post by Monsieur Gamma

If you 'make' yourself attracted to both genders you're CONFUSED. You can force yourself to have sex with a man if you wish, but if deep down you're not attracted to him then you're lying to yourself.

Hetero - different
Homo - Same
Bi - two/both/double

Anyway, you can't just 'make' yourself attracted to one specific gender - if you actually think that, you're dumb.

I'm not talking about having sex with them, but actually being attracted to them. If you can be attracted to either gender you are basically bisexual.

I know you cannot make yourself attracted to a gender, that's my entire point. The person I was quoting says that you can.

Reply 63

Anon_4

I feel so sorry for the bakers

Reply 64

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by Anonymous

Another fact is that homophobia, xenophobia, racism and discrimination will ALWAYS be here in our society. We won't EVER be able to eradicate it. because there will always be one person or a culture that refuses to accept it. I think we all just need to understand that and move on forward, whilst they move back? Don't you think?

I think it's that kind of logic that explains why there is still homophobia, xenophobia, and various other forms of discrimination in today's society. People think it's insurmountable, so they don't even challenge it. Except, in 1782, five people sat down around a table, and within 25 years had passed the bill in Parliament that abolished the slave trade, defeating a commercial enterprise comparable to the modern-day car industry. We may not be able to eliminate discrimination entirely, but we can certainly take good chunks out of it; it's been done before!

Reply 65

Monsieur Gamma

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

So you think they'll all be eradicated?? You're deluded.

Reply 66

dinprobss

Original post by james22

If this is OK then it should also be OK to refuse service to someone because they are black.

yo what's with the fancy maths equation?

Reply 67

james22

Original post by dinprobss

yo what's with the fancy maths equation?

It isn't an equation, it's the Weierstrass function.

Reply 68

Helen_in_Ireland

This case occurred in Oregon where the public accommodation law which governs commerce has a specific clause which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It is one of only 16 states in the US where LGBT citizens are protected against discrimination in employment, housing and the ability to purchase a wedding cake. There are a number of cities and towns which also have anti - discrimination laws but sadly many are challenged and repealed by public vote, usually under pressure from 'Christian' pastors who object to gay people living normal lives (or living at all - these people keep quoting Leviticus, and many would be happy to criminalise gays and lesbian. Seriously).

The bakery was prosecuted for breaking the public accommodation law. If they produce wedding cakes for sale then they must serve everyone equally, irrespective of their religious beliefs. If the law was not followed then in the southern states of America there would be places where the black community would still be drinking from separate fountains and eating at separate counters, nearly 50 years after the civil rights act.

As it is, LGBT people are frequently denied housing, fired from jobs, excluded from hospitals where their life-partner is ill (or spouse - a legitimate marriage from an equality state can be ignored once the state lines are crossed.

I have no sympathy for these business owners whatsoever. Their whining over their ' religious rights' seems to be totally at odds with the message of Jesus Christ with love for EVERY ONE. As Gandhi said, 'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ'.

Reply 69

Mad Vlad

They broke the law. The law supercedes religion. Care factory is all out of stock.

Reply 70

Helen_in_Ireland

Original post by Anon_4

I feel so sorry for the bakers

I do not. Their 'Christian' ethics broke the non - discrimination laws in Oregon, which protects LGBT people from being denied service just because of their sexual orientation. All businesses in Oregon have to follow this law, and using your religion to deny service to a minority shows a HUGE dissonance with the teachings of Christ.

Christ didn't eat with the Pharisees but with the tax collector, the prostitute, the leper and the other outcasts of society.

These people are the hypocrites, beating their breasts with false humility.

Reply 71

Helen_in_Ireland

Original post by TenOfThem

Well, I do not think that refusing to participate is the same as trying to prevent

We all have a right to hold views - even homophobic ones - as long as we do not act on those views in a manner that causes hurt or damage

The couple in question will have had many bakers to choose from so the bakers actions will have caused them no harm

Wrong. The harm comes the attack on the dignity of the couple, the discrimination being felt, the message being sent that gays and lesbians are not equal citizens and are not deserving of the same rights as these religious hypocrites.

And you have no idea if the next baker would accommodate them. Or the one in the next town. Or the one fifty miles away. Distances between towns in rural America can be huge.

They broke the anti - discrimination laws in the state of Oregon. Their fault, their hubris.

Reply 72

Helen_in_Ireland

Original post by Anonymous

Like?

I bet you're going to say: "Let gay people buy your food". No matter how homophobic it is, they, as business people in a private industry, can choose who they sell to.

Nope. The public accommodation law in Oregon specifically states that a business cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. This business broke that law.

Reply 73

Helen_in_Ireland

Original post by Monsieur Gamma

I'm quite clearly not homophobic ... how dare you even accuse me of it.

I support homosexuals, AND their rights = not homophobic ... you missed my point completely.

Again, it doesn't tell you to kill them yourself.

Race =/= sexuality ... Not selling to someone because of their race is 1) racist 2) ILLEGAL ... there is currently no law about not selling to homosexuals ... your point is invalid.

Who the hell said that they wanted a return to "no blacks, no Irish" ...?

P.S I'm Irish.

You're Irish? ! Then get clued in - the Equality acts of 1998, 2000 and 2004 prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.

These bakers would be sued here in Ireland as well. And they would lose here too.

Reply 74

bubadeeboop

If you own a business the government should not tell you who you have too or not have to serve, or who you have to or not have to employee.

It's your business, your livelyhood, the governement has just made more people unemployed. Thise women who sued them should be bloody well ashamed of themselves, do they think they have changed the bakers minds about homosexual marriage? I don't think they even care if they have, it was just a spiteful act to lash out.

If they don't want your money, don't give it to them and leave them a bad review on their site or yelp, you don't bankrupt them and destroy their life, that is such a dick move, I hope someone throws a brick in their faces, not because they are lesbians, but because they are *****.

I have no problem with gay marriage and think gender and sex shouldn't matter when two people want to get married, I do have a problem with dickheads.

Reply 75

Helen_in_Ireland

Original post by tazarooni89

I don't think the owners of the cake shop have done anything wrong really, and it certainly shouldn't be considered to be breaking the law.

Note that they haven't refused to serve a couple "for being lesbian". Rather, they have refused to create a product that actively promotes homosexuality. As far as I understand from the article, that couple would have been free to purchase any other cake. So this is not a case of discrimination. It is a case of people choosing which products they do and don't wish to sell. And they have every right not to sell products that are at odds with their beliefs.

It's akin to walking into a vegetarian restaurant, owned and run by vegetarians, and suing them because they refuse to cook you a meat dish. It isn't right. If you want to buy a product that they don't want to sell, you should go elsewhere.

With regard to the last paragraph, your analogy is wrong. The vegetarian restaurant does not serve meat TO ANYONE and does therefore not discriminate. The bakers made wedding cakes but would only sell them to heterosexuals, hence they have discriminated against the homosexual customers. This discrimination was against state law and so they were prosecuted for breaking the law.

And it was a wedding cake, which doesn't 'promote' homosexuality - it was a food item which would be served at a celebration of love. And love doesn't discriminate.

Reply 76

Helen_in_Ireland

Original post by bubadeeboop

Woah, you are SO wrong. So when you see a black person refused service in a shop just because of the colour of their skin well, that's okay because the business belongs to the owners?

I suggest that you study some business and commerce, you might be surprised at just how many laws are on the books regarding contracts and businesses.

PS. The lesbian couple were humiliated and degraded by the actions of the bakery, as they were treated as second - class citizens. The arrogance was on the part of the owners who stuck their religion into the couple's civil rights under state law.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 77

Phoebe Buffay

Hmm this does make me feel uneasy. It seems very harsh that they are facing the possibility of losing their business.

Reply 78

bubadeeboop

Original post by Helen_in_Ireland

I don't need to study anything, I know there are a lot of laws businesses are supposed to abid by, I am talking about my personal belief.

The government shouldn't be involved in this matter, were the bakers in the wrong? yes, but the couple that sued are no better.

I believe a business owner should be able to refuse service to ANYONE on anygrounds, even a black person. Do I agree with refusing to serve someone because of their skin colour? No, but I do agree with the business owners right to do so.

I am talking business owners mind you, the people who's livelyhood depend upon their business, not worker bee employees.

Why is this so wrong, but a muslim girl could refuse a woman the morning after pill at a pharmacy because it conflicted with her religion?