Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

anonguest

Religious freedom vs Political Correctness

Recommended Posts

Even as a card carrying aetheist, who has no time for the superstitious mumbo jumbo subscribed to by the bakers in this case, I am deeply troubled by the outcome of this case and the verdict against them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681

Methinks that, in future, people/businesspersons wanting to withold their services from particular individuals will simply keep their gobs shut and decline to serve and, if pressed for a reason (which is not a legal requirement in th efirst place??) merely quote some spurious, but plausible (and unproveable), reason such being 'fully booked already', etc.  Certainly that is what I would do.

In time I suspect we will see lots of people being declined business services (bakers, taxi drivers, etc the list is endless!) and no-one ever really knowing for sure why they were refused service.

I mean where does this nonsense end?!  Will a Jew, ordering Kosher meat from a Hallal butcher and inevitably being declined, be able to get the Muslim butcher prosecuted? Or indeed vice versa!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troublesome. I think the very idea that a private business can get told that it's not up to them who they do business with, even if I disagree with their reasons, is very unpleasantly Orwellian. You don't create "tolerance" by behaving intolerably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, anonguest said:

Even as a card carrying aetheist, who has no time for the superstitious mumbo jumbo subscribed to by the bakers in this case, I am deeply troubled by the outcome of this case and the verdict against them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681

Methinks that, in future, people/businesspersons wanting to withold their services from particular individuals merely keep their gobs shut and decline to serve and, if pressed for a reason (which is not a legal requirement in th efirst place??) merely quote some spurious, but plausible (and unproveable), reason such being 'fully booked already', etc.  Certainly that is what I would do.

In time I suspect we will see lots of people being declined business services (bakers, taxi drivers, etc the list is endless!) and no-one ever really knowing for sure why they were refused service.

I mean where does this nonsense end?!  Will a Jew, ordering Kosher meat from a Hallal butcher and inevitably being declined, be able to get the Muslim butcher prosecuted? Or indeed vice versa!

Correct.  But if you're going to start your OP with a vomit, try remembering that most people for their part think it's you who believe in "nonsense of a high order" (Fred Hoyle) and lie down in a darkened room for a while.

16 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

Mr Lee looks a bit of a tosser.

Lookism reported.

12 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Troublesome. I think the very idea that a private business can get told that it's not up to them who they do business with, even if I disagree with their reasons, is very unpleasantly Orwellian. You don't create "tolerance" by behaving intolerably.

Strictly speaking it's not about their "business" of cake-baking - it could have been an isolated out-of-hours request and the free speech issue would have been exactly the same.  A very black day for the UK.  How will Brexit help?  Will the ECHR still be available?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Troublesome. I think the very idea that a private business can get told that it's not up to them who they do business with, even if I disagree with their reasons, is very unpleasantly Orwellian. You don't create "tolerance" by behaving intolerably.

Exactly my thoughts.

I think we are going to end up living in a society where we constantly have to tell each other calculated little white lies any time we don't want to 'cooperate' with others, lest we tell the real reason and end up being punished.

A replay of the cake incident would probably, for those wary of the trouble they could get into for failing to serve a customer, probably go along the lines of:

Customer: Hi,. I'd like to order one of those cakes with an iced message that says "Support Gay Marriage"

Baker: Sorry but we're not making those cakes anymore. That one is the last we have.

Customer: Oh.OK then, I'll take that one then. Could you just put some extra icing on it.

Baker: Sorry we don't add extra icing after the cakes have been made....

and so on and so forth until the customer gives up and walks away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bakers broke the law.

Claiming "the voices in my head told me to do it" is no defence.

Even if they could provide God's mobile phone number to the Court and they were able to give him or her a call and verify it, it still doesn't make any difference.

You cannot absolve peoples' behaviours on the basis of some mythical higher power.

If you start doing that, you give justification to groups like ISIS for their existence and behaviour.

You are responsible for your own behaviours.

Had the bakers in question simply said they were "too busy", for example, then this probably wouldn't have come to pass, but they deliberately broke the law.

You could question whether the law is right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DTMark said:

The bakers broke the law.

Claiming "the voices in my head told me to do it" is no defence.

Even if they could provide God's mobile phone number to the Court and they were able to give him or her a call and verify it, it still doesn't make any difference.

You cannot absolve peoples' behaviours on the basis of some mythical higher power.

If you start doing that, you give justification to groups like ISIS for their existence and behaviour.

You are responsible for your own behaviours.

Had the bakers in question simply said they were "too busy", for example, then this probably wouldn't have come to pass, but they deliberately broke the law.

You could question whether the law is right.

 

They were honest with their reasons though. Whether someone agrees with them or not they should respect their honesty imo.

What appears to be the general consensus is that it may be better if we are not as honest with things like these. I think that's going backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DTMark said:

The bakers broke the law.

Claiming "the voices in my head told me to do it" is no defence.

Even if they could provide God's mobile phone number to the Court and they were able to give him or her a call and verify it, it still doesn't make any difference.

You cannot absolve peoples' behaviours on the basis of some mythical higher power.

If you start doing that, you give justification to groups like ISIS for their existence and behaviour.

You are responsible for your own behaviours.

Had the bakers in question simply said they were "too busy", for example, then this probably wouldn't have come to pass, but they deliberately broke the law.

You could question whether the law is right.

 

 

A poor argument.

There is a world of difference in politely declining to cooperate with someone in performing some task for them and using irrational belief in mystical higher powers to support your right to kill your fellow man!

This issue here is do people have a right to personal opinions and right to refuse to perform certain acts when asked to voulantarily engage in them AND the right to say to the requestor why they don't want to do it.

As you allude, and I already said, the outcome of this nonsense is that everyone (including you) will just end up constantly being forced to lie to each other. Is that how you wan to live?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, satch said:

 I assume that in the interests of equality and diversity he also asked the Muslim baker and the Jewish baker for the same cake and slogan.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DTMark said:

The bakers broke the law.

Claiming "the voices in my head told me to do it" is no defence.

Even if they could provide God's mobile phone number to the Court and they were able to give him or her a call and verify it, it still doesn't make any difference.

You cannot absolve peoples' behaviours on the basis of some mythical higher power.

If you start doing that, you give justification to groups like ISIS for their existence and behaviour.

You are responsible for your own behaviours.

Had the bakers in question simply said they were "too busy", for example, then this probably wouldn't have come to pass, but they deliberately broke the law.

You could question whether the law is right.

 

Sorry DT, I know you're one of the good guys but this is tosh. And nothing like hedging your bets with the last line there.

The couple could simply have taken their business elsewhere, ultimately it would have been the baker's loss not the couples. The difference with ISIS (completely disregarding the difference in scale between refusing to bake a cake and actually killing people) is that they cause others to incur a loss. 

Now if someone stopped the baker from selling a cake because he was gay, that would be a different kettle of fish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, anonguest said:

Even as a card carrying aetheist, who has no time for the superstitious mumbo jumbo subscribed to by the bakers in this case, I am deeply troubled by the outcome of this case and the verdict against them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681

Methinks that, in future, people/businesspersons wanting to withold their services from particular individuals merely keep their gobs shut and decline to serve and, if pressed for a reason (which is not a legal requirement in th efirst place??) merely quote some spurious, but plausible (and unproveable), reason such being 'fully booked already', etc.  Certainly that is what I would do.

In time I suspect we will see lots of people being declined business services (bakers, taxi drivers, etc the list is endless!) and no-one ever really knowing for sure why they were refused service.

I mean where does this nonsense end?!  Will a Jew, ordering Kosher meat from a Hallal butcher and inevitably being declined, be able to get the Muslim butcher prosecuted? Or indeed vice versa!

I think you've identified the crux of this case, though.  The bakers could have simply said that they were too busy, but they specifically went out of their way to make it a point about the customer being gay.  They chose to do this, knowing full well that it would be illegal.  So they were fined.  

If you think the law should be changed so that gay people can be denied equal access to public services, then you are totally free to make that argument, get the votes in Parliament, and change the law (assuming you can find a democratic majority who agree with you).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ccc said:

They were honest with their reasons though. Whether someone agrees with them or not they should respect their honesty imo.

What appears to be the general consensus is that it may be better if we are not as honest with things like these. I think that's going backwards.

People were honest with their reasons when they put up signs saying "No Jews", "No Blacks".

It took the law to put a stop to that. The law is what stops us fulfilling our animal instincts and applies to everyone equally. There is no discrimination.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ccc said:

They were honest with their reasons though. Whether someone agrees with them or not they should respect their honesty imo.

What appears to be the general consensus is that it may be better if we are not as honest with things like these. I think that's going backwards.

If a thief honestly wants to have my car, that doesn't give him an excuse to steal it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, frozen_out said:

Sorry DT, I know you're one of the good guys but this is tosh. And nothing like hedging your bets with the last line there.

 

1 minute ago, richc said:

I think you've identified the crux of this case, though.  The bakers could have simply said that they were too busy, but they specifically went out of their way to make it a point about the customer being gay.  They chose to do this, knowing full well that it would be illegal.  So they were fined.  

If you think the law should be changed so that gay people can be denied equal access to public services, then you are totally free to make that argument, get the votes in Parliament, and change the law (assuming you can find a democratic majority who agree with you).

^ Exactly this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if an anti-gay activist had requested a cake from a bakery run by a gay couple iced with the words "All gays should be locked up" and they, correctly to my mind, refused to do this as it conflicted with their beliefs then would they have been prosecuted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DTMark said:

The bakers broke the law.

Claiming "the voices in my head told me to do it" is no defence.

Even if they could provide God's mobile phone number to the Court and they were able to give him or her a call and verify it, it still doesn't make any difference.

You cannot absolve peoples' behaviours on the basis of some mythical higher power.

If you start doing that, you give justification to groups like ISIS for their existence and behaviour.

You are responsible for your own behaviours.

Had the bakers in question simply said they were "too busy", for example, then this probably wouldn't have come to pass, but they deliberately broke the law.

You could question whether the law is right.

 

I wonder.  I'd be prepared to wager that, given the track record of these intolerant SJW types, IF the customer got the slightest whiff of suspicion that he was being declined because of gay rights icing message he would have still tried to argue/assert that the reason for being refused was the anti-gay attitude by the bakers - even if it was never explcitly stated by the bakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DTMark said:

People were honest with their reasons when they put up signs saying "No Jews", "No Blacks".

It took the law to put a stop to that. The law is what stops us fulfilling our animal instincts and applies to everyone equally. There is no discrimination.

 

But what's better ? That people are upfront with their feelings on a subject and at least everyone knows this - or they pretend the opposite and nobody is any the wiser ?

I don't think these things being hidden is the best option. You will never eradicate it no matter how long we try. Best to have it fully on display imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, richc said:

I think you've identified the crux of this case, though.  The bakers could have simply said that they were too busy, but they specifically went out of their way to make it a point about the customer being gay.  They chose to do this, knowing full well that it would be illegal.  So they were fined.  

If you think the law should be changed so that gay people can be denied equal access to public services, then you are totally free to make that argument, get the votes in Parliament, and change the law (assuming you can find a democratic majority who agree with you).

Who's talking about public services?  This was a private business!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, richc said:

If a thief honestly wants to have my car, that doesn't give him an excuse to steal it. 

I think honesty is the best option full stop. The world would be a far better and simpler place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, anonguest said:

I wonder.  I'd be prepared to wager that, given the track record of these intolerant SJW types, IF the customer got the slightest whiff of suspicion that he was being declined because of gay rights icing message he would have still tried to argue/assert that the reason for being refused was the anti-gay attitude by the bakers - even if it was never explcitly stated by the bakers.

They had their "Get out of Jail Free" card but elected not to use it.

I think it comes down to the sort of basic standards we expect from people.

I did write a longer post about this once, but when balancing individual freedoms and generally being "libertarian", on these cases, I come down on the side of the law and think it right and necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DTMark said:

People were honest with their reasons when they put up signs saying "No Jews", "No Blacks".

It took the law to put a stop to that. The law is what stops us fulfilling our animal instincts and applies to everyone equally. There is no discrimination.

 

But the bakers were not discriminating against the customers colour, race, religion or even his sexual orientation.

If the gays rights customer had just ordered an ordinary cake they would have sold it to him. They did not practice a 'No Gays' business.

So again your argument is poor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

And if an anti-gay activist had requested a cake from a bakery run by a gay couple iced with the words "All gays should be locked up" and they, correctly to my mind, refused to do this as it conflicted with their beliefs then would they have been prosecuted?

"Their beliefs" do not sit higher than Law.

If they do, you justify "honour killings".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DTMark said:

"Their beliefs" do not sit higher than Law.

If they do, you justify "honour killings".

No you don't!. Because the wrongfullness extra-judicial killing is universally recognised across cultures regardless of local law, custom or religion.  Name me one society or culture where arbitrary 'on a whim' murder is approved of and/or goes unpunished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is sad that instead of respecting the view of the bakers in their private business and going elsewhere, the gay couple, with their hurt feelings, in full SJW mode made a big deal about it and decided to teach these people a lesson to further advance their cause.

Such intolerance from shouty SJW types breeds intolerance when most people are quite tolerant; don't care and certainly don't want people's lifestyle choices thrown in their face.

It wasn't that big a deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

And if an anti-gay activist had requested a cake from a bakery run by a gay couple iced with the words "All gays should be locked up" and they, correctly to my mind, refused to do this as it conflicted with their beliefs then would they have been prosecuted?

One cake would be non-discriminatory, one would the opposite. Can you guess which is which? If you can, then you fully understand the laws covering this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   73 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.