Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Gay Cake Gate Thrown Out.......
163 Answers
Answers
People need to stop clambering onto the holier than thou bandwagon and get back to basics , this couple should have said ‘0kayyy’ and took themselves off to another bakers , No, they decide to ruin a craftsman’s business and have the shop shut and take the matter to court , the right decision was made to kick it out, I hope the baker can reopen with three times the...
11:33 Thu 06th Jan 2022
Bobby - // People need to stop clambering onto the holier than thou bandwagon and get back to basics , this couple should have said ‘0kayyy’ and took themselves off to another bakers , No, they decide to ruin a craftsman’s business and have the shop shut and take the matter to court ... //
I don't think it is about being 'holier than thou'.
The case arises because this type of discrimination is illegal.
If you are on the receiving end of prejudice, and the law is on your side, why would you not want to defend your rights?
I am not at all sure, and neither are you, that the couple acted in order to have the business closed down.
They simply decided that this one blatant act of bigotry was not going to stand, and they acted upon it.
If I went into a shop and the shop keeper declined to serve me, but refused to give an answer, I would be baffled, but willing to shop elsewhere.
If he said he was refusing to serve me because I am white, I would not be inclined to say 'Okaaaay ...' and go elsewhere, I would be ringing my solicitor.
Laws exist to prevent prejudice, they don't get a swerve because the reason is faith-based, any more than my racist shopkeeper would, and nor should they.
I don't think it is about being 'holier than thou'.
The case arises because this type of discrimination is illegal.
If you are on the receiving end of prejudice, and the law is on your side, why would you not want to defend your rights?
I am not at all sure, and neither are you, that the couple acted in order to have the business closed down.
They simply decided that this one blatant act of bigotry was not going to stand, and they acted upon it.
If I went into a shop and the shop keeper declined to serve me, but refused to give an answer, I would be baffled, but willing to shop elsewhere.
If he said he was refusing to serve me because I am white, I would not be inclined to say 'Okaaaay ...' and go elsewhere, I would be ringing my solicitor.
Laws exist to prevent prejudice, they don't get a swerve because the reason is faith-based, any more than my racist shopkeeper would, and nor should they.
// I hope the baker can reopen with three times the customers they had ,saying as the name of the shop will now be well known, good luck to their future //
Bobbisox, here in NI Ashers bakery distribute to many local shops throughout the country.
Since this furore blew up, I have made a point of buying Ashers bread in my local Eurospar supermarket in a small attempt to support the business.
I have no doubt that there are many others like me who disagree with the attempt to ruin this business and are buying Ashers bread because of it.
PS. Their sourdough loaves are the best I have tasted.
Bobbisox, here in NI Ashers bakery distribute to many local shops throughout the country.
Since this furore blew up, I have made a point of buying Ashers bread in my local Eurospar supermarket in a small attempt to support the business.
I have no doubt that there are many others like me who disagree with the attempt to ruin this business and are buying Ashers bread because of it.
PS. Their sourdough loaves are the best I have tasted.
Bobbi - // Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case Barry, this was a couple who systematically ruined a person business for their own exposure //
Is the notion that they 'systematically ruined a business for their own exposure' based on your own prejudice?
The fact that the 'systematic' aspect was actually the law taking action, in fact, the 'system' lies there, not with the couple, and the closure action was not of the couple's instigation.
If the couple had been refused service because they were black, would your attitude be the same?
Is the notion that they 'systematically ruined a business for their own exposure' based on your own prejudice?
The fact that the 'systematic' aspect was actually the law taking action, in fact, the 'system' lies there, not with the couple, and the closure action was not of the couple's instigation.
If the couple had been refused service because they were black, would your attitude be the same?
// If he said he was refusing to serve me because I am white, I would not be inclined to say 'Okaaaay ...' and go elsewhere, I would be ringing my solicitor //.
Andy Hughes, this is not a fair comparison.
The baker did not refuse to sell the cake to the customer because the customer was homosexual.
The baker refused to agree create a cake with a slogan that was against everything he (the baker) believed in.
That is a different matter.
Andy Hughes, this is not a fair comparison.
The baker did not refuse to sell the cake to the customer because the customer was homosexual.
The baker refused to agree create a cake with a slogan that was against everything he (the baker) believed in.
That is a different matter.
Hi Sparkly - // Hi AH.
If I went into a shop and the shop keeper declined to serve me, but refused to give an answer, I would be baffled, but willing to shop elsewhere.
That would be your response, their response was to badger the baker to their own ends. //
The two are not comparable.
I am leaving the shop baffled, with no reason. If I had a reason, and it was illegal I would take action.
The couple were advised that their refusal was based on illegal prejudice, and they responded accordingly.
You are bringing in your 'bullying' scenario again, even though you admit that we don't know what took place because we weren't there.
If I went into a shop and the shop keeper declined to serve me, but refused to give an answer, I would be baffled, but willing to shop elsewhere.
That would be your response, their response was to badger the baker to their own ends. //
The two are not comparable.
I am leaving the shop baffled, with no reason. If I had a reason, and it was illegal I would take action.
The couple were advised that their refusal was based on illegal prejudice, and they responded accordingly.
You are bringing in your 'bullying' scenario again, even though you admit that we don't know what took place because we weren't there.
Ringlet - // Andy Hughes, this is not a fair comparison.
The baker did not refuse to sell the cake to the customer because the customer was homosexual.
The baker refused to agree create a cake with a slogan that was against everything he (the baker) believed in.
That is a different matter. //
I think that is really splitting hairs.
The prejudice was clearly and obviously against the notion of gay marriage, and the only people who are involved gay marriage are gay people.
Your semantics would no doubt have been raised in the initial legal arguments, and found wanting there, as they are here.
The baker did not refuse to sell the cake to the customer because the customer was homosexual.
The baker refused to agree create a cake with a slogan that was against everything he (the baker) believed in.
That is a different matter. //
I think that is really splitting hairs.
The prejudice was clearly and obviously against the notion of gay marriage, and the only people who are involved gay marriage are gay people.
Your semantics would no doubt have been raised in the initial legal arguments, and found wanting there, as they are here.
Bobbi - // AH prejudice No, right and wrong Yes but I refuse to get into your twisting of words with you //
Right and wrong yes - indeed, and breaking the law is clearly wrong.
Prejudice clearly yes, since the case was proven in a court of law.
There is no 'twisting of words' at all - I simply question your motive for your position, if you choose not to debate it, that's fine, I shall draw my own conclusion.
Right and wrong yes - indeed, and breaking the law is clearly wrong.
Prejudice clearly yes, since the case was proven in a court of law.
There is no 'twisting of words' at all - I simply question your motive for your position, if you choose not to debate it, that's fine, I shall draw my own conclusion.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Rwanda Threat Not Working? Right Oh!
News14 mins ago
Technology16 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
ChatterBank24 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.