Gay cake row and freedom of speech
Just like the government can not arrest you for saying something political the government should not be able to force you to endorse/reproduce a set of political beliefs.
TSR is not obliged to host antisemitic holocaust deniers. TSR denies these users this site's service, not because they are gay/black/white, but because the owner/owners of the site have decided to exercise their right to not to have to pass on the politics of these people and display it on this forum.
Lets pretend a gay cake maker is approached by a bigoted anti-gay campaigner and who wants a cake that say "gays will go to hell" (it isn't illegal to say that) for some far right Christian/Muslim event. Should the gay baker be obliged to carry out that request? I'd day no and I hope the law does as well.
Just like with freedom fo speech you have to defend for the views you hate, the same applies here. So you should not be allowed to refuse service to someone purely because they are gay. But that doesn't mean you should have to provide a service to further some kind of political statement, which gay marriage is.
Basically the right to free speech should also includes the right not to be compelled to say things against our will.
I don't really know what the legal reality is but that is how I think it should be.
TSR is not obliged to host antisemitic holocaust deniers. TSR denies these users this site's service, not because they are gay/black/white, but because the owner/owners of the site have decided to exercise their right to not to have to pass on the politics of these people and display it on this forum.
Lets pretend a gay cake maker is approached by a bigoted anti-gay campaigner and who wants a cake that say "gays will go to hell" (it isn't illegal to say that) for some far right Christian/Muslim event. Should the gay baker be obliged to carry out that request? I'd day no and I hope the law does as well.
Just like with freedom fo speech you have to defend for the views you hate, the same applies here. So you should not be allowed to refuse service to someone purely because they are gay. But that doesn't mean you should have to provide a service to further some kind of political statement, which gay marriage is.
Basically the right to free speech should also includes the right not to be compelled to say things against our will.
I don't really know what the legal reality is but that is how I think it should be.
(edited 8 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Gosh, how many times do we have to say this.
One is directly discriminatory and insulting (ie saying homosexuals will burn in hell, or saying Nazi were right or whatever), while the other is not. It seeks neither to degrade nor to insult, but rather qualify the rights of one particular group.
Hence, in the former case, people are trying to flame, mock or insult others, while in the latter case they are not.
Posted from TSR Mobile
One is directly discriminatory and insulting (ie saying homosexuals will burn in hell, or saying Nazi were right or whatever), while the other is not. It seeks neither to degrade nor to insult, but rather qualify the rights of one particular group.
Hence, in the former case, people are trying to flame, mock or insult others, while in the latter case they are not.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by *Stefan*
Gosh, how many times do we have to say this.
One is directly discriminatory and insulting (ie saying homosexuals will burn in hell, or saying Nazi were right or whatever), while the other is not. It seeks neither to degrade nor to insult, but rather qualify the rights of one particular group.
Hence, in the former case, people are trying to flame, mock or insult others, while in the latter case they do not.
Posted from TSR Mobile
One is directly discriminatory and insulting (ie saying homosexuals will burn in hell, or saying Nazi were right or whatever), while the other is not. It seeks neither to degrade nor to insult, but rather qualify the rights of one particular group.
Hence, in the former case, people are trying to flame, mock or insult others, while in the latter case they do not.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You understood the OP?
I'm like what the **** is a gay cake.
Original post by mango peeler
Damn. I ain't even smoke weed yet and this OP has me ****ed up completely.
Original post by mango peeler
You understood the OP?
I'm like what the **** is a gay cake.
I'm like what the **** is a gay cake.
Lol
It's a recent court case in Ireland...
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by *Stefan*
Lmao ohh thanks, I don't know anything about Irish news
What's this about then?
Original post by mango peeler
Lmao ohh thanks, I don't know anything about Irish news
What's this about then?
What's this about then?
www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3340997
Original post by mango peeler
Lmao ohh thanks, I don't know anything about Irish news
What's this about then?
What's this about then?
Basically the above, yeah.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Cheers.
_______
Ok so now the religious groups that feel discriminated against, if they do, should sue. I agree it's undermining religion. That's a defensible and sensible statement. If they did it on the grounds of their religion, it should be accepted. And not just some random refusal like if a public school denies gay..whoever, students, employees, parents, janitor lol then it's wrong because you're not doing it for any precise reason. If it's a religious school it makes sense to deny it
Imagine if you were apart of any entity that held a certain belief, and someone then sued you for it
Original post by *Stefan*
Ok I responded
Would anyone here want to be sued for their beliefs? Come on. Ridiculous. Forget about the specific details of who is who. The simple principle is ****ing stupid to sue for their beliefs. Suing over a cake, gtfoh.
They probably went into a place they know is Christian and asked for that wording to stir **** up so they could sue and exercise or demonstrate these burgeoning gay rights.
They probably went into a place they know is Christian and asked for that wording to stir **** up so they could sue and exercise or demonstrate these burgeoning gay rights.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Just like the government can not arrest you for saying something political the government should not be able to force you to endorse/reproduce a set of political beliefs.
TSR is not obliged to host antisemitic holocaust deniers. TSR denies these users this site's service, not because they are gay/black/white, but because the owner/owners of the site have decided to exercise their right to not to have to pass on the politics of these people and display it on this forum.
Lets pretend a gay cake maker is approached by a bigoted anti-gay campaigner and who wants a cake that say "gays will go to hell" (it isn't illegal to say that) for some far right Christian/Muslim event. Should the gay baker be obliged to carry out that request? I'd day no and I hope the law does as well.
Just like with freedom fo speech you have to defend for the views you hate, the same applies here. So you should not be allowed to refuse service to someone purely because they are gay. But that doesn't mean you should have to provide a service to further some kind of political statement, which gay marriage is.
Basically the right to free speech should also includes the right not to be compelled to say things against our will.
I don't really know what the legal reality is but that is how I think it should be.
TSR is not obliged to host antisemitic holocaust deniers. TSR denies these users this site's service, not because they are gay/black/white, but because the owner/owners of the site have decided to exercise their right to not to have to pass on the politics of these people and display it on this forum.
Lets pretend a gay cake maker is approached by a bigoted anti-gay campaigner and who wants a cake that say "gays will go to hell" (it isn't illegal to say that) for some far right Christian/Muslim event. Should the gay baker be obliged to carry out that request? I'd day no and I hope the law does as well.
Just like with freedom fo speech you have to defend for the views you hate, the same applies here. So you should not be allowed to refuse service to someone purely because they are gay. But that doesn't mean you should have to provide a service to further some kind of political statement, which gay marriage is.
Basically the right to free speech should also includes the right not to be compelled to say things against our will.
I don't really know what the legal reality is but that is how I think it should be.
Would you be happy for a baker to refuse to bake a cake saying 'Happy Eid' for a Muslim group or 'Happy Hanukkah' for a Jewish group?
Original post by mango peeler
Would anyone here want to be sued for their beliefs? Come on. Ridiculous. Forget about the specific details of who is who. The simple principle is ****ing stupid to sue for their beliefs. Suing over a cake, gtfoh.
They probably went into a place they know is Christian and asked for that wording to stir **** up so they could sue and exercise or demonstrate these burgeoning gay rights.
They probably went into a place they know is Christian and asked for that wording to stir **** up so they could sue and exercise or demonstrate these burgeoning gay rights.
The thing is that it's not about the beliefs per se. They refused to sell the cake because of the message, which did not mention any religion whatsoever. It simply read "pro-gay marriage".
Now, this did not mean to insult anyone or anything, it simply read a message. It would be different if it read "Christians suck" or whatever, but it did no such thing which basically mocked someone.
As far as this goes then, it's a business governed by law. They are free of course to believe whatever they want, but this was discriminatory: it's obvious from their statements that they wouldn't refuse any other regular bride and groom cake, since this would not go "against their religious beliefs".
Original post by Lady Comstock
Would you be happy for a baker to refuse to bake a cake saying 'Happy Eid' for a Muslim group or 'Happy Hanukkah' for a Jewish group?
lmao it's a cake. You always try to perversely reverse things. It's not the same thing. Even if it is, it's over a cake. Realize you're taking cake print too seriously. It's a cake.
Original post by mango peeler
lmao it's a cake. You always try to perversely reverse things. It's not the same thing. Even if it is, it's over a cake. Realize you're taking cake print too seriously. It's a cake.
I'm not saying the situation is analogous to this in terms of racial segregation, but the same sort of logic (attempting to minimise the debate due to the subject matter) could have been said about Rosa Parks' bus: "it's just a bus!". That's immaterial.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Just like the government can not arrest you for saying something political the government should not be able to force you to endorse/reproduce a set of political beliefs.
TSR is not obliged to host antisemitic holocaust deniers. TSR denies these users this site's service, not because they are gay/black/white, but because the owner/owners of the site have decided to exercise their right to not to have to pass on the politics of these people and display it on this forum.
Lets pretend a gay cake maker is approached by a bigoted anti-gay campaigner and who wants a cake that say "gays will go to hell" (it isn't illegal to say that) for some far right Christian/Muslim event. Should the gay baker be obliged to carry out that request? I'd day no and I hope the law does as well.
Just like with freedom fo speech you have to defend for the views you hate, the same applies here. So you should not be allowed to refuse service to someone purely because they are gay. But that doesn't mean you should have to provide a service to further some kind of political statement, which gay marriage is.
Basically the right to free speech should also includes the right not to be compelled to say things against our will.
I don't really know what the legal reality is but that is how I think it should be.
TSR is not obliged to host antisemitic holocaust deniers. TSR denies these users this site's service, not because they are gay/black/white, but because the owner/owners of the site have decided to exercise their right to not to have to pass on the politics of these people and display it on this forum.
Lets pretend a gay cake maker is approached by a bigoted anti-gay campaigner and who wants a cake that say "gays will go to hell" (it isn't illegal to say that) for some far right Christian/Muslim event. Should the gay baker be obliged to carry out that request? I'd day no and I hope the law does as well.
Just like with freedom fo speech you have to defend for the views you hate, the same applies here. So you should not be allowed to refuse service to someone purely because they are gay. But that doesn't mean you should have to provide a service to further some kind of political statement, which gay marriage is.
Basically the right to free speech should also includes the right not to be compelled to say things against our will.
I don't really know what the legal reality is but that is how I think it should be.
I like gays and I like cake. How can this even be an issue?
Original post by *Stefan*
The thing is that it's not about the beliefs per se. They refused to sell the cake because of the message, which did not mention any religion whatsoever. It simply read "pro-gay marriage".
Now, this did not mean to insult anyone or anything, it simply read a message. It would be different if it read "Christians suck" or whatever, but it did no such thing which basically mocked someone.
As far as this goes then, it's a business governed by law. They are free of course to believe whatever they want, but this was discriminatory: it's obvious from their statements that they wouldn't refuse any other regular bride and groom cake, since this would not go "against their religious beliefs".
Now, this did not mean to insult anyone or anything, it simply read a message. It would be different if it read "Christians suck" or whatever, but it did no such thing which basically mocked someone.
As far as this goes then, it's a business governed by law. They are free of course to believe whatever they want, but this was discriminatory: it's obvious from their statements that they wouldn't refuse any other regular bride and groom cake, since this would not go "against their religious beliefs".
Lol no. Pro gay marriage is very antagonizing. Just say "We're Getting Married, Tom and Richard" or whoever. Pro Gay marriage for a cake at an unsaid wedding for a gay marriage
(we can only assume this is what the cake was for, but it's still ridiculous because I'm sure the two people getting married know they're pro gay already. It looks like something someone would say like a skinhead walking by a group of Muslims saying, "White power!"They never said, "**** Muslims" they just taunted with white power! Can you arrest or sue them for that? I'm sure you can start some **** over it. But the "message" as you say is there. So the offense is there. And if the Muslims want to ban the skinheads from coming to the shop lol they can and will. And no problem.
So if the Christian establishment wants to ban the gays from coming in taunting their Gay Power the same a skinhead would indirectly war mong with "pro gay!" on a cake...
makes sense to me, think about it.This was not discriminatory. Of course on TSR people will pass by and anonymously rep considering the demographic, I've been on here long enough to know what's popular thinking and what isn't. But in the real world this is ridiculous. It's a passive aggressive almost contrived way ( contrived because of how silly it is and how it got ruled and how it's "news" etc) to set an example of gay rights. It's turning into Gay nazism. People can't even defend their beliefs anymore without trouble. It's a double standard. It's hypo-****ing-critical. To say it's ok to sue someone for their beliefs...for turning away business for their beliefs. It is about the belief per se lol. It's literally about the belief. There is no respect for religion so their principles were disregarded completely. How is that cool? That's not ok.
Original post by Lady Comstock
I'm not saying the situation is analogous to this in terms of racial segregation, but the same sort of logic (attempting to minimise the debate due to the subject matter) could have been said about Rosa Parks' bus: "it's just a bus!". That's immaterial.
Lmao you did it again trying to create analogies when you said it's not analogous...
Original post by JPO92
I like gays and I like cake. How can this even be an issue?
But do you like gay cakes?
lol I bet there's a hashtag gay cake already goings-on. Isn't there. Not even gonna google to find out. This is just how people are.
I just can't believe people think that freedom of speech still exists...
Original post by mango peeler
Lmao you did it again trying to create analogies when you said it's not analogous...
No, I suggested that it's fallacious to disregard an argument merely because of the subject matter, whether a bus seat or a cake.
The argument itself should be addressed (and I happen to think the court's decision was wrong - they should have been allowed to refuse to bake the cake), and not disregarded because it involves something trivial, like a cake.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Freedom of Speech (Rights & Responsibilities)
- University of Reading - Clever Cuisine
- English language, descriptive writing
- can someone pls mark this eng lang 2 question 5 for me?
- Education
- Don't buy Bitcoin...
- Anyone else here watch snooker?
- motivation for a levels
- Top 5 Coffee Places in Coventry
- Top 5 Coffee Places in Coventry
- Is WGHS (Wolverhampton Girls High School) any good.
- Anyone fancy a chat?
- Catered or Uncatered - Drama offers
- Advice about what to take to halls of residence
- OCR A Level Law Paper 3
- Is it possible to buy a house before it is valued and then sell it after valuation?
- Make it More Breakfast Cereal-ey !!
- Geert Wilders's far-right PVV wins most seats in Dutch election
- Thinking about dropping out of Uni. Am I to behind.
- HKU or Bocconi?
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
British Airways Graduate Programme 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1278
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Haven't heard back from LSELast reply 5 minutes ago
Official Bishop Grosseteste University Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 14 minutes ago
Official: Queen's University Belfast A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 17 minutes ago
If I drop a subject, do I have to submit the grade to UCAS still?Last reply 17 minutes ago
What is better LLM SQE or SQE Preparation Courses - or Training contract?Posted 20 minutes ago
is anyone else going to the bath offer holders day april 20th?Posted 20 minutes ago
Is City university of London better or University of YorkLast reply 21 minutes ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 22 minutes ago
Can I do medicine with these gcse grades and what unis would be most likely to acceptLast reply 28 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadTrending
Last reply 7 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?Trending
Last reply 7 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?
