It doesn't, but it was the most readily available (and most applicable, I think? Or are Hispanics a bigger block in the US now?) example of a group of people to test the theory that "you should be able to turn customers away for any reason".

Reply 23

Wired_1800

20

Original post by Drewski

It doesn't, but it was the most readily available (and most applicable, I think? Or are Hispanics a bigger block in the US now?) example of a group of people to test the theory that "you should be able to turn customers away for any reason".

This topic is controversial because of the sub-text. I think people should be able to apply their rights within the limits of their own environment.

Imagine it was a group of terrorists that wanted the cake or Nazis, would people be up in arms about it? Probably not.

Reply 24

Wired_1800

20

Original post by Cubone-r

Because in the oppression Olympics they win the gold medal.

It gets tiring that black people are always used as the litmus test for social affairs.

Reply 25

Drewski

19

Original post by Wired_1800

This topic is controversial because of the sub-text. I think people should be able to apply their rights within the limits of their own environment.

Imagine it was a group of terrorists that wanted the cake or Nazis, would people be up in arms about it? Probably not.

I don't disagree (with your second part), but on the first part (bolded), who gets to decide the limits?

Reply 26

Wired_1800

20

Original post by Drewski

I don't disagree (with your second part), but on the first part (bolded), who gets to decide the limits?

That is the billion dollar question. Should it be the individual, the community, the state or those that can shout the loudest?

Can I demand that you allow me to live in your house? If not, are you within your rights? Can someone else determine that you must allow me to impose myself on you.

This is very controversial and I think this is the reason why the Supreme Court tried their possible best to remain neutral. Else some homosexual couples would be going around Christian, Jewish and Muslim shops to argue discrimination.

That couple could have gone to another shop, but they clearly wanted to get noticed. My GF is Jewish and has been refused custom in some shops, but rather than shout, she went to another shop.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 27

GlockInmyRari

16

He didn't refuse just because they are gay. He didn't want to paricipate in a gay wedding. There is a difference there. Still questionable, but still a big difference.

If a muslim publisher doesn't want to publish a christian book because of his beliefs, thats different and far more okay than refusing all service to all christians.

Reply 28

MJ1012

18

Original post by Cubone-r

It's not as simple as that, religious freedom is protected under the US Constitution.

That was exactly my point.

Reply 29

Cubone-r

21

Original post by MJ1012

That was exactly my point.

Why is it absurd, as you put it, that we respect the right of people's religious freedom though?

Reply 30

Joleee

19

people are stupid. you can't win brownie points with God by not baking a wedding cake. moreover, i would bet my right nut that these bakers bake cakes for non-christian couples all the time, so what's the difference?

after the case in Ireland i remember seeing many articles written by the LGBT community firmly against the decision. they thought the bakers should have a right to refuse service/disagree with gay marriage because gay people have a right to disagree with them right back. not sure where i stand on the whole thing, just thought that was interesting.

Reply 31

MJ1012

18

Original post by Cubone-r

Why is it absurd, as you put it, that we respect the right of people's religious freedom though?

Because it leads to cases like this where people get to treat people of different genders/sexualities poorly with no reason of substance behind it.

Reply 32

Cubone-r

21

Original post by MJ1012

Because it leads to cases like this where people get to treat people of different genders/sexualities poorly with no reason of substance behind it.

Uh, the reason behind it is that a significant number of Christians do not believe that two men or two women can go through the religious Christian ceremony of marriage due to the scripture in their holy book. This has been established for thousands of years so to say there's no substance behind their arguments or religious rights is false.

You may not like it, but people have the right to practice and express their religion freely as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. In this case I don't believe the gay couple's rights were infringed upon by the baker refusing to say they wouldn't make them a cake for their gay wedding because they could easily go to the nice bakery next door and get a cake.

These freedoms that we have, such as religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the individual to do as he or she wants within the law etc, aren't just poetic sentences, they are rights that are protected under constitutions, human rights acts, and so on. The majority of the world do not have these rights and so they should be protected at all costs even if you think they are absurd.

And hey, if getting treated poorly in society is having someone refuse to bake me a cake due to their religious beliefs when I can go to another baker and get a cake, then that's pretty good going in the grand scheme of human history.

Reply 33

MJ1012

18

Original post by Cubone-r

Uh, the reason behind it is that a significant number of Christians do not believe that two men or two women can go through the religious Christian ceremony of marriage due to the scripture in their holy book. This has been established for thousands of years so to say there's no substance behind their arguments or religious rights is false.

You may not like it, but people have the right to practice and express their religion freely as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. In this case I don't believe the gay couple's rights were infringed upon by the baker refusing to say they wouldn't make them a cake for their gay wedding because they could easily go to the nice bakery next door and get a cake.

These freedoms that we have, such as religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the individual to do as he or she wants within the law etc, aren't just poetic sentences, they are rights that are protected under constitutions, human rights acts, and so on. The majority of the world do not have these rights and so they should be protected at all costs even if you think they are absurd.

And hey, if getting treated poorly in society is having someone refuse to bake me a cake due to their religious beliefs when I can go to another baker and get a cake, then that's pretty good going in the grand scheme of human history.

Lol. You don't understand my point. I'm saying that "it's in the scriptures" is not a reason worthy of respect in the first place. If you believe in something with no proof (and even ignores scientific proof at times) people should not have to have any respect for your belief. I'm not advocating violence or criminalizing belief but you shouldn't be able to do anything that would not be allowed if you weren't religious.

Reply 34

Cubone-r

21

Original post by MJ1012

Lol. You don't understand my point. I'm saying that "it's in the scriptures" is not a reason worthy of respect in the first place. If you believe in something with no proof (and even ignores scientific proof at times) people should not have to have any respect for your belief. I'm not advocating violence or criminalizing belief but you shouldn't be able to do anything that would not be allowed if you weren't religious.

I'm saying the very fact that it is in the scriptures and part of the religion is reason for people to respect it.

You don't understand religious freedom do you? Yes, there might not be a God out there and Jesus might not have walked on water, but whatever you think of religion the rights of those expressing it must be respected because it is ingrained in the constitution in the US and in the laws in the UK.

Reply 35

Underscore__

21

Original post by Drewski

*Any* reason?

What if this baker didn't want <insert any race here> customers?

Completely fine by me. If you were <insert race here> would you rather pay someone for a service who dislikes you because of your race but couldn’t legally reject your custom?

Reply 36

Drewski

19

Original post by Underscore__

Completely fine by me. If you were <insert race here> would you rather pay someone for a service who dislikes you because of your race but couldn’t legally reject your custom?

When that service is an artisinal bakers, fine.

But what if they're the ambulance service? What if it's the fire service?

At some point, somewhere, you have to draw a line and say you can't discriminate. Where's the line?

Reply 37

username3832246

17

Original post by Drewski

*Any* reason?

What if this baker didn't want <insert any race here> customers?

Then the business is at loss - not just the customers it is refusing to serve but the bad rep it'll bring on itself.

Reply 38

Guru Jason

21

Original post by Wired_1800

Why does everything have to boil down to black people?

Because one can't choose their sexual orientation or their race so why is it acceptable to refuse service for one and not the othetr. Speaks of hypocracy to me

Reply 39

Drewski

19

Original post by johnny.snow

Then the business is at loss - not just the customers it is refusing to serve but the bad rep it'll bring on itself.

As I said above, in the case of something relatively frivolous like a cake shop, fine.

But what if that practise was followed by the ambulance service?

Where do you draw the line?

US supreme court backs bakers gay-wedding snub

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you