Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Gay cake row and freedom of speech Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Erm...? Didn't make much out of this.



    I didn't expect you to change your opinion, I've learned my lesson by now.

    Still, you're wrong.
    when will you love me
    what do you mean by the learned your lesson bit

    there is no right and wrong, who died and made you a god
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mango peeler)
    when will you love me
    what do you mean by the learned your lesson bit

    there is no right and wrong, who died and made you a god
    Never, cause I'm harsh like that.

    I mean that by now I know you will remain to your opinion regardless of what I or anyone else says...

    Nice rhyme there... And no one had to die
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Never, cause I'm harsh like that.

    I mean that by now I know you will remain to your opinion regardless of what I or anyone else says...

    Nice rhyme there... And no one had to die
    Where's the rhyme
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mango peeler)
    Where's the rhyme
    there is no right and wrong,
    who died and made you a god

    At least it is to me
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    there is no right and wrong,
    who died and made you a god

    At least it is to me
    I pronounce wrong almost like rung. And I pronounce God like gyahd.

    :erm:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mango peeler)
    I pronounce wrong almost like rung. And I pronounce God like gyahd.

    :erm:
    Interesting...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Interesting...
    Are you eye-talian
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mango peeler)
    Are you eye-talian
    I can't believe this word actually exists! :O


    And nope...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    I can't believe this word actually exists! :O


    And nope...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You ain't? :hmmm:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mango peeler)
    You ain't? :hmmm:
    What made you think I am?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Italians are bae though :sexface:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    What made you think I am?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Italians are bae though :sexface:
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I thought somewhere you said you were, I dunno.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm Christian and I don't believe that homosexuality is right, but never would I discriminate against someone for being gay!
    Everyone and anyone deserves to be treated equally if they are bringing no harm to anyone else.
    I would bake that cake, because you are providing a service that they are paying you for.
    And it's not as if they will cancel their wedding just because you wont bake their cake for them!
    So essentially you aren't encouraging their actions in any way.
    Love everyone equally and let God be the judge of their actions, not you.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mango peeler)
    I thought somewhere you said you were, I dunno.
    Nah, pretty close call though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Gay civil rights is not Black civil rights and the two should not be confused.

    You can tell a black person is black the moment you lay eyes on them. Black people can't readily hide their identity and all of a sudden stop being black. A black person can identify with being a difference race, but unless they go through extensive bleaching and plastic surgery they cannot easily hide or change their pre-defined genetic disposition. There was no escape from discrimination in the 400 or so (and continued) years of oppression faced by people of colour. They weren't simply fighting for the same rights under state and federal law, they were fighting for their very survival... their right to be recognised as human beings, not savages or animals. Now I'm willing to accept that this may offend homosexuals and their supporters, but this much is true... Gay people have definitely suffered segregation, discrimination and violence, however, there has never been the blanket denial of their humanity en mass.

    If I were a gay man living in a place where homosexual acts were illegal then I would simply stop performing homosexual acts in public. I could, If I so chose, hide it and be considered normal. What I did behind closed doors is nobody's business but mine and my partners. YES I would feel aggrieved that I would be forced to suppress my homosexuality in public but I would at least be safe and still able to do these things albeit in the privacy of my own home. Now wanting to have a normal life with my partner would be tricky and it would SUCK that I couldn't go out with them and do the kind of things normal couples do. I completely get that, and, I agree with the fight to make things like that possible. BUT STILL, YOU CANNOT HIDE BEING BLACK IN PUBLIC. THIS IS NOT THE SAME STRUGGLE. The very skin on a black person's bones is what was disqualifying them from being considered human. The muscles, the bone density.. their mental faculties!!!

    I know this sounds bigoted. I understand that one should not have to hide who they feel like they are to suit the whims of others, even though it may be causing them offence. I know that Gay people in the past faced exile, torture, alienation and sometimes imprison and even death for letting the world know they're sexuality. And although I know that this following statement will cause offence I still champion it: Gay people only faced these struggles when they made it publicly known that they were gay. Note the absurdity that stems from this following analogous sentence: Black people only faced these struggles when they made it publicly known that they were black. Like I said... this is not the same struggle.

    "I have gay friends who are married. The states in which they reside might not recognize their unions, but their friends and families do, and they generally live their lives in peace. No one is turning water hoses on them. They are not being attacked by police dogs. There is no Bull Connor or Ku Klux Klan. They are not being lynched en masse, drinking at separate fountains, or being ordered to the back of the bus.
    This is not to say that gay Americans who wish to have the full benefits of marriage afforded to heterosexual couples don’t face adversity. That’s a major part of the current debate. But it is to say that any hardship they face can’t compare to what black Americans faced 50 or 150 years ago.There have been instances during the gay-rights movement that arguably could be compared to the black civil rights struggle, like the Stonewall riots of the 1960s or Matthew Shepard murder in 1998. Suicides and other problems related to public attitudes about homosexuality have also unquestionably been a horrible ordeal. Still, with the possible exception of the mistreatment of Native Americans, there has been nothing quite like the systematic exploitation and institutional degradation experienced by earlier black Americans.My purpose here is not to belittle the fight for gay marriage, only to note that those who keep attempting to draw a reasonable comparison to the struggle of African-Americans are in many ways belittling the black experience in the United States."--- Cherry picked from: http://www.theamericanconservative.c...ghts-struggle/ ... (There are many sources equivocating the two struggles but I chose this one because the author makes a good point concerning my own personal view on how the struggles are not one and the same.)

    You know Gay Rights is a tough subject to debate but I feel like it's no comparison to the struggle of black people. I mean I personally feel offended when I see two men kiss or hold hands... but I feel offended when I see someone pick their nose in public, I feel offended when I see people making out in public in general, I feel offended when I hear people chewing loudly, I hate when people don't cover their mouths when they sneeze or yawn and I want to strangle loud snorers.

    The act offends me not the person.

    I've met many gay men and women and genuinely had a blast talking and working with them, most of the time never knowing they were even gay. Even when it's come up that they like the same sex it's never changed anything. They're usually lovely people who understand what it's like being oppressed and picked on, experiences a lot of people go through in life without being a minority... just a human. To me a man is a man... I don't see the need to put "Gay" in front of the "man" because what is really outwardly different between us except who we choose (or don't choose) to love? Gay people are just people... not some new race or species.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LVRG)
    Gay civil rights is not Black civil rights and the two should not be confused.

    You can tell a black person is black the moment you lay eyes on them. Black people can't readily hide their identity and all of a sudden stop being black. A black person can identify with being a difference race, but unless they go through extensive bleaching and plastic surgery they cannot easily hide or change their pre-defined genetic disposition. There was no escape from discrimination in the 400 or so (and continued) years of oppression faced by people of colour. They weren't simply fighting for the same rights under state and federal law, they were fighting for their very survival... their right to be recognised as human beings, not savages or animals. Now I'm willing to accept that this may offend homosexuals and their supporters, but this much is true... Gay people have definitely suffered segregation, discrimination and violence, however, there has never been the blanket denial of their humanity en mass.

    If I were a gay man living in a place where homosexual acts were illegal then I would simply stop performing homosexual acts in public. I could, If I so chose, hide it and be considered normal. What I did behind closed doors is nobody's business but mine and my partners. YES I would feel aggrieved that I would be forced to suppress my homosexuality in public but I would at least be safe and still able to do these things albeit in the privacy of my own home. Now wanting to have a normal life with my partner would be tricky and it would SUCK that I couldn't go out with them and do the kind of things normal couples do. I completely get that, and, I agree with the fight to make things like that possible. BUT STILL, YOU CANNOT HIDE BEING BLACK IN PUBLIC. THIS IS NOT THE SAME STRUGGLE. The very skin on a black person's bones is what was disqualifying them from being considered human. The muscles, the bone density.. their mental faculties!!!

    I know this sounds bigoted. I understand that one should not have to hide who they feel like they are to suit the whims of others, even though it may be causing them offence. I know that Gay people in the past faced exile, torture, alienation and sometimes imprison and even death for letting the world know they're sexuality. And although I know that this following statement will cause offence I still champion it: Gay people only faced these struggles when they made it publicly known that they were gay. Note the absurdity that stems from this following analogous sentence: Black people only faced these struggles when they made it publicly known that they were black. Like I said... this is not the same struggle.

    "I have gay friends who are married. The states in which they reside might not recognize their unions, but their friends and families do, and they generally live their lives in peace. No one is turning water hoses on them. They are not being attacked by police dogs. There is no Bull Connor or Ku Klux Klan. They are not being lynched en masse, drinking at separate fountains, or being ordered to the back of the bus.
    This is not to say that gay Americans who wish to have the full benefits of marriage afforded to heterosexual couples don’t face adversity. That’s a major part of the current debate. But it is to say that any hardship they face can’t compare to what black Americans faced 50 or 150 years ago.There have been instances during the gay-rights movement that arguably could be compared to the black civil rights struggle, like the Stonewall riots of the 1960s or Matthew Shepard murder in 1998. Suicides and other problems related to public attitudes about homosexuality have also unquestionably been a horrible ordeal. Still, with the possible exception of the mistreatment of Native Americans, there has been nothing quite like the systematic exploitation and institutional degradation experienced by earlier black Americans.My purpose here is not to belittle the fight for gay marriage, only to note that those who keep attempting to draw a reasonable comparison to the struggle of African-Americans are in many ways belittling the black experience in the United States."--- Cherry picked from: http://www.theamericanconservative.c...ghts-struggle/ ... (There are many sources equivocating the two struggles but I chose this one because the author makes a good point concerning my own personal view on how the struggles are not one and the same.)

    You know Gay Rights is a tough subject to debate but I feel like it's no comparison to the struggle of black people. I mean I personally feel offended when I see two men kiss or hold hands... but I feel offended when I see someone pick their nose in public, I feel offended when I see people making out in public in general, I feel offended when I hear people chewing loudly, I hate when people don't cover their mouths when they sneeze or yawn and I want to strangle loud snorers.

    The act offends me not the person.

    I've met many gay men and women and genuinely had a blast talking and working with them, most of the time never knowing they were even gay. Even when it's come up that they like the same sex it's never changed anything. They're usually lovely people who understand what it's like being oppressed and picked on, experiences a lot of people go through in life without being a minority... just a human. To me a man is a man... I don't see the need to put "Gay" in front of the "man" because what is really outwardly different between us except who we choose (or don't choose) to love? Gay people are just people... not some new race or species.

    Oh and I wrote this titan of a post in response to those who keep using the discrimination of ethnic minorities as a vessel to highlight the plight of homosexuals in society.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LVRG)
    Gay civil rights is not Black civil rights and the two should not be confused.

    You can tell a black person is black the moment you lay eyes on them. Black people can't readily hide their identity and all of a sudden stop being black. A black person can identify with being a difference race, but unless they go through extensive bleaching and plastic surgery they cannot easily hide or change their pre-defined genetic disposition. There was no escape from discrimination in the 400 or so (and continued) years of oppression faced by people of colour. They weren't simply fighting for the same rights under state and federal law, they were fighting for their very survival... their right to be recognised as human beings, not savages or animals. Now I'm willing to accept that this may offend homosexuals and their supporters, but this much is true... Gay people have definitely suffered segregation, discrimination and violence, however, there has never been the blanket denial of their humanity en mass.

    If I were a gay man living in a place where homosexual acts were illegal then I would simply stop performing homosexual acts in public. I could, If I so chose, hide it and be considered normal. What I did behind closed doors is nobody's business but mine and my partners. YES I would feel aggrieved that I would be forced to suppress my homosexuality in public but I would at least be safe and still able to do these things albeit in the privacy of my own home. Now wanting to have a normal life with my partner would be tricky and it would SUCK that I couldn't go out with them and do the kind of things normal couples do. I completely get that, and, I agree with the fight to make things like that possible. BUT STILL, YOU CANNOT HIDE BEING BLACK IN PUBLIC. THIS IS NOT THE SAME STRUGGLE. The very skin on a black person's bones is what was disqualifying them from being considered human. The muscles, the bone density.. their mental faculties!!!

    I know this sounds bigoted. I understand that one should not have to hide who they feel like they are to suit the whims of others, even though it may be causing them offence. I know that Gay people in the past faced exile, torture, alienation and sometimes imprison and even death for letting the world know they're sexuality. And although I know that this following statement will cause offence I still champion it: Gay people only faced these struggles when they made it publicly known that they were gay. Note the absurdity that stems from this following analogous sentence: Black people only faced these struggles when they made it publicly known that they were black. Like I said... this is not the same struggle.

    "I have gay friends who are married. The states in which they reside might not recognize their unions, but their friends and families do, and they generally live their lives in peace. No one is turning water hoses on them. They are not being attacked by police dogs. There is no Bull Connor or Ku Klux Klan. They are not being lynched en masse, drinking at separate fountains, or being ordered to the back of the bus.
    This is not to say that gay Americans who wish to have the full benefits of marriage afforded to heterosexual couples don’t face adversity. That’s a major part of the current debate. But it is to say that any hardship they face can’t compare to what black Americans faced 50 or 150 years ago.There have been instances during the gay-rights movement that arguably could be compared to the black civil rights struggle, like the Stonewall riots of the 1960s or Matthew Shepard murder in 1998. Suicides and other problems related to public attitudes about homosexuality have also unquestionably been a horrible ordeal. Still, with the possible exception of the mistreatment of Native Americans, there has been nothing quite like the systematic exploitation and institutional degradation experienced by earlier black Americans.My purpose here is not to belittle the fight for gay marriage, only to note that those who keep attempting to draw a reasonable comparison to the struggle of African-Americans are in many ways belittling the black experience in the United States."--- Cherry picked from: http://www.theamericanconservative.c...ghts-struggle/ ... (There are many sources equivocating the two struggles but I chose this one because the author makes a good point concerning my own personal view on how the struggles are not one and the same.)

    You know Gay Rights is a tough subject to debate but I feel like it's no comparison to the struggle of black people. I mean I personally feel offended when I see two men kiss or hold hands... but I feel offended when I see someone pick their nose in public, I feel offended when I see people making out in public in general, I feel offended when I hear people chewing loudly, I hate when people don't cover their mouths when they sneeze or yawn and I want to strangle loud snorers.

    The act offends me not the person.

    I've met many gay men and women and genuinely had a blast talking and working with them, most of the time never knowing they were even gay. Even when it's come up that they like the same sex it's never changed anything. They're usually lovely people who understand what it's like being oppressed and picked on, experiences a lot of people go through in life without being a minority... just a human. To me a man is a man... I don't see the need to put "Gay" in front of the "man" because what is really outwardly different between us except who we choose (or don't choose) to love? Gay people are just people... not some new race or species.
    The two are used as analogies. The way racism and homophobia affects a person in different ways is irrelevant. It's about the discrimination, not the extent to which one thinks he or she is being mistreated.

    The fact that one is obvious while the other is not should not be relevant either. This is no excuse to treat homosexuals differently. We live in a modern democratic society, not Saudi Arabia.

    Finally, I agree that there shouldn't be a need to out "gay" before a man. Yet society's stereotypes and whatnot have made it a necessity. You will, even in the most liberal of countries, find people who won't ever talk to you again if they find out you're gay. So, what a homosexual supposed to do? Hide it in case people around then don't like it? That's a passive form of oppression.

    But on the topic, it's about ideals, not race or sexual orientation. If a non-white person asked a public service (even a cake which read, for instance, "Black rights matter"), not serving them just on the basis of either their complexion or beliefs is pathetic. They didn't say white lives don't matter, for instance, they merely said something about themselves. The same applies to other issues of other minorities. If it gets to the point where one may find it offensive, ie Whites Suck, obviously the other party should be able to refuse service. But in these cases, that is not so. Ultimately, serving someone doesn't mean you agree with them: Muslims working in supermarkets may have to seek pork - it doesn't mean they personally like porn, they're just doing a service. I don't see why it should be any different to this.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    The two are used as analogies. The way racism and homophobia affects a person in different ways is irrelevant. It's about the discrimination, not the extent to which one thinks he or she is being mistreated.

    The fact that one is obvious while the other is not should not be relevant either. This is no excuse to treat homosexuals differently. We live in a modern democratic society, not Saudi Arabia.

    Finally, I agree that there shouldn't be a need to out "gay" before a man. Yet society's stereotypes and whatnot have made it a necessity. You will, even in the most liberal of countries, find people who won't ever talk to you again if they find out you're gay. So, what a homosexual supposed to do? Hide it in case people around then don't like it? That's a passive form of oppression.

    But on the topic, it's about ideals, not race or sexual orientation. If a non-white person asked a public service (even a cake which read, for instance, "Black rights matter", not serving them just on the basis of either their complexion or beliefs is pathetic. They didn't say white lives don't matter, for instance, they merely said something about themselves. The same applies to other issues of other minorities. If it gets to the point where one may find it offensive, ie Whites Suck, obviously the other party should be able to refuse service. But in these cases, that is not so. Ultimately, serving someone doesn't mean you agree with them: Muslims working in supermarkets may have to seek pork - it doesn't mean they personally like porn, they're just doing a service. I don't see why it should be any different to this.

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    On topic: Let's say I own a bakery in London. I'm a devout Christian. Someone walks in and requests a cake be made that says: "Pro Sharia Law in London."

    Why would I make said cake? It goes against everything I believe and it's message, if achieved, would change my entire way life. I don't care who ordered the cake, it's the message that I refuse to publicise. How is this discrimination? What if I make a point of not promoting any political or religious messages on any of my products... shouldn't that be my choice as the business owner? I don't want to convey a message that doesn't fit within my brand... businesses make these choices every day.

    The people who ordered the cake were not discriminated against. They walked into the shop without issue, they were allowed to order a cake without issue. Their message was not chosen because it goes against the business and brand and more importantly the business owner's personal beliefs. That is not discrimination.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LVRG)
    On topic: Let's say I own a bakery in London. I'm a devout Christian. Someone walks in and requests a cake be made that says: "Pro Sharia Law in London."

    Why would I make said cake? It goes against everything I believe and it's message, if achieved, would change my entire way life. I don't care who ordered the cake, it's the message that I refuse to publicise. How is this discrimination? What if I make a point of not promoting any political or religious messages on any of my products... shouldn't that be my choice as the business owner? I don't want to convey a message that doesn't fit within my brand... businesses make these choices every day.

    The people who ordered the cake were not discriminated against. They walked into the shop without issue, they were allowed to order a cake without issue. Their message was not chosen because it goes against the business and brand and more importantly the business owner's personal beliefs. That is not discrimination.
    The same mistake again and again. When will people understand that the two are not comparable?

    Saying "Pro Sharia Law" necessarily means that Sharia Law should be above Parliamentary/Judicial Law, that subjects who are not Muslims will be treated badly and that Islam will become a political doctrine.

    Saying "Pro Gay marriage" is very different, in that it does not imply opposite sex marriage should be treated as inferior or should not exist. It simply means that these specific people are in favour of homosexuals being able to marry each other. That's it. No mocking, no insults, no implied messages.

    In the former case, refusing service would not amount to discrimination considering the message itself is discriminatory. In the latter, it is, considering the message is not discriminatory, and hetero couples would be treated differently.

    I can't explain it in simpler words.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    IMO, whatever the cake would say, tbh even if it was just a plain, standard cake with nothing on it at all, a business should still reserve the right to refuse service to a customer. Why should the business owner be obliged to make that cake?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    The same mistake again and again. When will people understand that the two are not comparable?

    Saying "Pro Sharia Law" necessarily means that Sharia Law should be above Parliamentary/Judicial Law, that subjects who are not Muslims will be treated bad and that Islam will become a political doctrine.

    Saying "Pro Gay marriage" is very different, in that it does not imply opposite sex marriage should be treated as inferior or should not exist. It simply means that these specific people are in favour of homosexuals being able to marry each other. That's it. No mocking, no insults, no implied messages.

    In the former case, refusing service it would not be discrimination considering the message itself is discriminatory. In the latter, it is, considering the message is not discriminatory, and hetero couples would be treated differently.

    I can't explain it in simpler words.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Wait so "Pro-Gay marriage" is not implying that sin be committed in the house of God? What more motivation does a devout christian have to refuse service? It's a direct violation. In this case are you saying their Gay rights take precedent over the owners religious rights?

    Either way it's a slogan that can be considered offensive. To impose it is to discriminate against those who find it offensive in the context of religion. Their religion forbids it and to impose it directly violates the law of God. To them the slogan is dangerous and it's realisation could bring about God's wrath upon humanity.

    (As silly as this sounds - I'm no christian- I've heard this exact argument before)

    But on a serious note. I firmly believe they should have the right of refusal for this kind of slogan. Change the slogan, get served... keep the slogan, go elsewhere. Again the slogan is the problem not the person ordering it as they have clearly been allowed in the store to make an order.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.