Rwanda Threat Not Working? Right Oh!
News2 mins 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
pat - // What makes a bakery Christian for goodness sake and do they only sell to people that think like they do. I think I'm with AnneA here. A lot of twaddle on both sides. The shop doesn't deserve business and the bloke should have just gone elsewhere. As simple as that. What a complete waste of time. //
I agree with the first part of your position, but not the second.
The bakers should not be allowed to use their prejudices to break the law, and indeed they are not.
But prejudice must be addressed with vigour, or it continues to fester and grow.
I applaud the actions of the couple involved, not to allow others to have their lifestyle demographics demeaned by strangers, who broke the law to make their odious point.
I agree with the first part of your position, but not the second.
The bakers should not be allowed to use their prejudices to break the law, and indeed they are not.
But prejudice must be addressed with vigour, or it continues to fester and grow.
I applaud the actions of the couple involved, not to allow others to have their lifestyle demographics demeaned by strangers, who broke the law to make their odious point.
Avatar Image andy-hughesSparkly - //Thanks to AH I have learned that I am a prejudiced bigot ,lol. //
I have neither stated or implied such, but if you wish to refer to yourself as such, that is your business, but please don't attach me to it.
Thank you.
I believe you ascribed those terms to the baker. As I agree with the baker they must also apply to me.
I am off now as AH is in last word mode.
I have neither stated or implied such, but if you wish to refer to yourself as such, that is your business, but please don't attach me to it.
Thank you.
I believe you ascribed those terms to the baker. As I agree with the baker they must also apply to me.
I am off now as AH is in last word mode.
naomi - // AH, take a breath and a moment to try to understand what others are saying. //
I don't need your patronising thank you, I am perfectly capable of debating as I see fit, and to do that, I must, and do, understand what others of saying or all persuasions.
// Your soapbox is wearing thin. //
Noted, and ignored.
I don't need your patronising thank you, I am perfectly capable of debating as I see fit, and to do that, I must, and do, understand what others of saying or all persuasions.
// Your soapbox is wearing thin. //
Noted, and ignored.
Sparkly - // Avatar Image andy-hughesSparkly - //Thanks to AH I have learned that I am a prejudiced bigot ,lol. //
I have neither stated or implied such, but if you wish to refer to yourself as such, that is your business, but please don't attach me to it.
Thank you.
I believe you ascribed those terms to the baker. As I agree with the baker they must also apply to me. //
Please show me where I have referred to the baker as a 'prejudiced idiot.'
If you want to assume the attitude of someone which is an attitude you have made up, then carry on, but again, please don;t involve me in your fanciful nonsense.
I have neither stated or implied such, but if you wish to refer to yourself as such, that is your business, but please don't attach me to it.
Thank you.
I believe you ascribed those terms to the baker. As I agree with the baker they must also apply to me. //
Please show me where I have referred to the baker as a 'prejudiced idiot.'
If you want to assume the attitude of someone which is an attitude you have made up, then carry on, but again, please don;t involve me in your fanciful nonsense.
Andy, you can't suppress predudice by law in my opinion. It just fires it up. People are entitled to their opinions if they keep them to themselves. The baker's should have made the cake and kept their mouths shut. But legal proceedings shouldn't have happened. There are better ways of dealing with things.
//They simply should have turned him away without comment.//
They could have, lottie, but why should they? If memory serves the order was taken but when the slogan was requested the bakers felt that went against their principles because they don't believe in gay marriage - hence their explanation. It just seems absolutely wrong to me to shut people up simply because they don't say what you want them to say.
They could have, lottie, but why should they? If memory serves the order was taken but when the slogan was requested the bakers felt that went against their principles because they don't believe in gay marriage - hence their explanation. It just seems absolutely wrong to me to shut people up simply because they don't say what you want them to say.
Pat - // Andy, you can't suppress predudice by law in my opinion. It just fires it up. //
I entirely agree - prejudices are eradicated by education, not statute, but I do applaud the law that protects people from prejudice, and I think the two should act in tandem.
// People are entitled to their opinions if they keep them to themselves. The baker's should have made the cake and kept their mouths shut. //
I think rather, that there is a time and a place for the expression of opinions, and a service to a customer is not one of them.
I have posted earlier that the baker's better option would have been to decline the customer's order at the time, without reason, rather than take his money, think about it, and then ring him at work to confirm their personal prejudice and break the law in the process.
// But legal proceedings shouldn't have happened. There are better ways of dealing with things. //
There are, but when laws are broken, legal proceedings follow, that's the nature of things.
I entirely agree - prejudices are eradicated by education, not statute, but I do applaud the law that protects people from prejudice, and I think the two should act in tandem.
// People are entitled to their opinions if they keep them to themselves. The baker's should have made the cake and kept their mouths shut. //
I think rather, that there is a time and a place for the expression of opinions, and a service to a customer is not one of them.
I have posted earlier that the baker's better option would have been to decline the customer's order at the time, without reason, rather than take his money, think about it, and then ring him at work to confirm their personal prejudice and break the law in the process.
// But legal proceedings shouldn't have happened. There are better ways of dealing with things. //
There are, but when laws are broken, legal proceedings follow, that's the nature of things.
naomi - // //They simply should have turned him away without comment.//
They could have, lottie, but why should they? //
Because they are a service, and a business, not a personal morality crusade.
If they want to foist their unwanted prejudices on other people, don't run a bakery, where you are required to conform to the customer's request, and your own bigotry is neither required or requested.
// It just seems absolutely wrong to me to shut people up simply because they don't say what you want them to say. //
Again, it's not about 'shutting them up', it's about them having the common sense to realise that their business is making cakes, not providing unrequested moral judgement on strangers.
If you have a moral and religious stance that prevents you from providing aspects of service, then refuse the order, and when the urge to offer your own opinion on the lifestyle of the customer, be sensible enough to sit on it, and talk to your colleagues after the customer has left.
Don't take his money, think about it, get superior, and embarrass him in his work place, breaking the law as you do so.
They could have, lottie, but why should they? //
Because they are a service, and a business, not a personal morality crusade.
If they want to foist their unwanted prejudices on other people, don't run a bakery, where you are required to conform to the customer's request, and your own bigotry is neither required or requested.
// It just seems absolutely wrong to me to shut people up simply because they don't say what you want them to say. //
Again, it's not about 'shutting them up', it's about them having the common sense to realise that their business is making cakes, not providing unrequested moral judgement on strangers.
If you have a moral and religious stance that prevents you from providing aspects of service, then refuse the order, and when the urge to offer your own opinion on the lifestyle of the customer, be sensible enough to sit on it, and talk to your colleagues after the customer has left.
Don't take his money, think about it, get superior, and embarrass him in his work place, breaking the law as you do so.
Latest Posts
News6 mins ago
Technology15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Kinnochio Is Not Convinced...and He'd...
News41 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.