"Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery[W:30]

[Andalublue]

Anglo-Scot, you are homophobic. You stereotype gays and come up with a view of them which makes them sub human, or as the judge said sinful.

In this thread I did not know at the beginning you were. You would have been completely right to raise issues which you had a genuine concern for. Rather you spent the entire thread denying that the gay man had any rights at all in connection with this lawsuit and indeed with anything else. Eventually you came out with your view that gays are unnatural and immoral and have more than once spoken about their sexuality which until recently appeared to be the base of your aversion to people who are gay. Now you have them involved in creating three people babies and claim the government has agreed to this which it most certainly has not.

Gay people make babies already. They live a variety of lives. I will give you one example.
I have a long time friend. She is heterosexual, had one child and has always been in contact with his father. She wanted another child but had gone off men, did not want to get into another relationship and so asked a gay man she was friends with if he would be willing to donate sperm so she could achieve this. He agreed and it worked and she gave birth to another child which she had originally expected to take full responsibility for. The dad however wanted to be involved as the father and started coming round most days so that he could develop a close relationship with his new son. At first she thought this was a bit over the top but in time things worked out well and they decided they would buy a home together and bring the children up as a family – while not in any way being engaged in a sexual relationship. They have been living together for over 20 years. He has taken on the responsibility to both boys, both financially and emotionally as if he were their father and they get on better than many if not most heterosexual married couples. Personally for my friend it clearly has worked out very well and for the boys as well. They have been a loving, supportive family unit. Both children are now adults and do not live at home though visit regularly.

Now she is getting near retirement age and is thinking of what she wants to do. One thing is certain. She and her gay friend will be spending it together. It may be an unusual relationship but there is nothing unnatural or immoral about it.

People are not stereotypes. They are individuals. You begin from the premise of believing that gay people are unnatural and immoral. All your other anti gay decisions come from this basic judgement that gay people are unnatural and immoral. That is why you are homophobic and that harms people. What you seem to be especially angry about is that gay people have won in the main acceptance and inclusion in society.

As I have said before I believe your orientation comes from how you were brought up - what you were taught gay people are.. I brought up my daughter from the beginning to be aware that not everyone is heterosexual – that some people form relationships with people of the same sex. Because I told her this from the beginning she has never for one moment doubted the right for people who are homosexual to be homosexual.

Great post! Lovely anecdote too, I wish your friend and her non-standard family luck, health and happiness. Would that others could butt out of judging other people's lifestyles and domestic arrangements as if they had some right to engineer society to their own anachronistic ends. :applaud

 

[Andalublue]

The slur of homophobia now just means opposition to the current orthodoxy of the current gay rights lobby.

No, it doesn't. See my exchanges earlier in the thread with Red Dave, who is not a million miles away from your position on this matter. Note the difference in tone and content of our exchange.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

A Guy Walked Into a Muslim Bakery and Ordered a Gay Wedding Cake… | PJ Tatler
Video here of man asking several Muslim bakeries in USA to bake him a wedding cake for a gay couple. They said no, politely. No-one would dare bring a similar case to Ashers against Muslims. Why is that?

Great catch - worth a thread in its own right as it's about muslim bakeries refusing to bake cakes with pro-gay / pro-ssm messages.

Wonder if anyone will get outraged about those bakeries?

You said: "In that case, the messages were probably more hateful and thus discriminatory - again, this can be open to personal interpretation."

I pointed out that in their 'personal interpretation' many in the anti-gay lobby draw a moral equivalence between a pro-gay slogan and an expression of hate-speech. Seemed obvious to me.

It would; which is why it's not making sense why I was quoted. Why not just throw a random one-liner in and not quote me?

Nevermind.

 

[Manc Skipper]

A Guy Walked Into a Muslim Bakery and Ordered a Gay Wedding Cake… | PJ Tatler
Video here of man asking several Muslim bakeries in USA to bake him a wedding cake for a gay couple. They said no, politely. No-one would dare bring a similar case to Ashers against Muslims. Why is that?

Perhaps because it's a different country. Why don't YOU "dare" if it concerns you so much? Christianist crowdfunding will ensure you profit from painlessly "martyring" yourself.

 

[Andalublue]

It would;

It would what?

 

[Red_Dave]

Well you're completely wrong - I believe what I believe because I believe it's right. Perhaps a younger person can blame their upbringing but I can't and won't. Sometimes believing in objective moral principles makes you unpopular and open to insults such as yours - so be it. Something is right or wrong in itself.

On calling me homophobic, I refer you to my previous post in response to Andalablue. The slur of homophobia now just means opposition to the current orthodoxy of the current gay rights lobby. It adds nothing to debates on sexual ethics, except heat and moral blackmail.

I don't say that gay people can't love and care for children, and I'm sure that many do, but it's perfectly reasonable to oppose gay adoption on the basis that men and women create children naturally and both bring unique and necessary qualities to the upbringing of children. Whilst life doesn't always mean it's possible for every child to have a loving mother and father, it doesn't mean that the law and society can't promote this ideal.

On IVF for gay people, that's every kind of wrong. I don't agree with IVF full stop because it's an unnatural way to conceive and it results in the destruction of huge numbers of embryos. The fact that lovely children result from it does not justify the means.

We disagree on morals and you have every right to disagree with me. My beliefs are shared by billions round the world. To label me as this or that is a very cheap and disappointing debating tactic. There's a bigger world out there of people not in the grip of sentimentalist morality.

Just on a note of curiosity why would somethings being 'unantural' in itself make it bad? medicine is unantural

 

[Andalublue]

Just on a note of curiosity why would somethings being 'unantural' in itself make it bad? medicine is unantural

Quite. Almost every social and scientific development can be said to be 'unnatural'. It's an insult that has been levelled at virtually every social advance you can think of. Mixed-race marriage, women getting the vote, all IVF, birth control, abortion, the ordination of women, the list goes on and on, all castigated by their opponents as 'unnatural'.

 

[Red_Dave]

Quite. Almost every social and scientific development can be said to be 'unnatural'. It's an insult that has been levelled at virtually every social advance you can think of. Mixed-race marriage, women getting the vote, all IVF, birth control, abortion, the ordination of women, the list goes on and on, all castigated by their opponents as 'unnatural'.

Computers...

 

[Andalublue]

Computers...

A moral obscenity! At least, my computer's cache would suggest such. :shock:

 

[Anglo-scot]

Just on a note of curiosity why would somethings being 'unantural' in itself make it bad? medicine is unantural

It's a fair question and I can say more but it's off-topic and is a whole new area, probably worthy of a separate thread.

 

[Anglo-scot]

Perhaps because it's a different country. Why don't YOU "dare" if it concerns you so much? Christianist crowdfunding will ensure you profit from painlessly "martyring" yourself.

I've got nothing against Muslim bakers operating like Ashers. The point is the gay lobby will be viewed much more clearly as stirrers if they go after another vulnerable group / minority than white Europeans / Americans. The storm of opposition will be much stronger too from Muslims than from Christians.

 

[Anglo-scot]

Re: "Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery

I described your ideas as prejudiced and homophobic, and I did so in great and pains-taking detail, explaining why they deserve no other adjectives.

Homophobia has a number of very clear meanings; a psychological and irrational fear of homosexuals, and dislike or prejudice against homosexuals. Those are clear and agreed upon by the vast majority of dictionaries and by general and widespread usage. It's a tactic of the right-wing to pretend that terms such as this, and 'racism' and 'sexism' are disputed terms or have no agreed-upon definition. They do, and I think I've explained in detail and beyond reasonable doubt why your attitudes expressed towards homosexuals are homophobic.

It isn't your opposition to SSM that shows your homophobic attitudes, it's your prejudiced descriptions of homosexuals in general, and gay parents in particular that condemn you. You might be surprised to learn that I'm not in favour of gay marriage either, however I'm 100% in favour of equal opportunity and access to marriage, as long as the institution remains recognised by the state.

How to contradict yourself in the space of 59 characters. That must be some kind of record.

On definitions of homophobia, here's Collins's Meaning of “homophobia” | Collins American English for Learners and here's Oxford's http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homophobia. Both refer to dislike of gay people, not a disagreement with the gay rights agenda, which unsurprisingly they don't venture into. Collins and Oxford are fairly standard dictionaries so I don't know which ones you mean. I've never seen anyone define homophobia or accuse people of homophobia in a non-polemic context.

Again, more aspersions referring to my so-called "prejudiced descriptions" of gay parents and homosexuals. I've talked about the issues, not the people. We're back to the same reasoning of the judge - if you do something that upsets a gay person, connected with their sexuality, then you are homophobic. It really does come down to this level of subjectivism and you and others on this thread seem to support this.

You condemn me, not my own words. No contradictions on my side.

 

[Andalublue]

It's a fair question and I can say more but it's off-topic and is a whole new area, probably worthy of a separate thread.

Then make it, and invite Captain Courtesy to join in; he's has a very strong set of arguments that you should enjoy debating.

 

[Henrin]

No, it doesn't. See my exchanges earlier in the thread with Red Dave, who is not a million miles away from your position on this matter. Note the difference in tone and content of our exchange.

Really? Then I guess you can explain why everyone that shows any opposition to the goals of the gay movement is called a homophobe.

 

[Andalublue]

Re: "Gay Cake": Judge rules against Ashers bakery

On definitions of homophobia, here's Collins's Meaning of “homophobia” | Collins American English for Learners and here's Oxford's homophobia - definition of homophobia in English from the Oxford dictionary. Both refer to dislike of gay people, not a disagreement with the gay rights agenda,

This isn't about a disagreement with any gay rights agenda. I didn't refer to your objections to the Ashers' case as homophobic, but to your descriptions of homosexuals as 'unnatural', 'morally obscene' and your personal admission of acts of prejudice and discrimination.

Again, more aspersions referring to my so-called "prejudiced descriptions" of gay parents and homosexuals.

It's right here in this thread for all to read.

You condemn me, not my own words. No contradictions on my side.

Except all I've condemned are your words. I've described your attitudes, actions and words as homophobic. Try again.

 

[Gardener]

I've got nothing against Muslim bakers operating like Ashers. The point is the gay lobby will be viewed much more clearly as stirrers if they go after another vulnerable group / minority than white Europeans / Americans. The storm of opposition will be much stronger too from Muslims than from Christians.

and when Muslim cab drivers refuse to pick up blind people who happen to have a seeing eye dog.........?

The problem I have with your point of view is that the attitude that is both bigoted and stupid is entirely voluntary. The Muslim CHOOSES to see dogs as unclean. The same goes with Christians who have adopted the sexual mores of ignorant nomads wandering the dessert three thousand years ago. You CHOOSE to follow such customs without so much as a scintilla of thought applied to how these mores came about, whether or not they involve harm, or whether they are worth investing such an enormous amount of your attention that could be spent elsewhere. If homosexuality were the veritable centerpiece of the faith you purport to follow, why didn't Jesus ever even mention it? Do you really see Him as so ineffectual and unfocused that it just slipped his mind and he forgot something that is so absolutely essential to his teachings as you are trying to make it?

Why not show some respect for Jesus, instead, by adopting the attitude that He knew what was really important and what wasn't? If persecuting gay people was to be the centerpiece of His gospel , He would have made it so.

 

[Andalublue]

Really? Then I guess you can explain why everyone that shows any opposition to the goals of the gay movement is called a homophobe.

They're not. Dave's opposed to the Ashers' judge's decision. He's not a homophobe, he just disagrees with it. I'm not 100% in favour of it either. I was also against the Stonewall bus ads campaign mentioned earlier, as were plenty of people. It's not a question of everyone who opposes every gay rights initiative being homophobic, but some, perhaps a sizeable proportion of those in opposition to ANY gay rights initiative do indeed display their own homophobic agenda. Think NavyPride, Logicman, Hicup, now Anglo-Scot, etc etc... it's a long and shameful list.

 

[Andalublue]

Why not show some respect for Jesus, instead, by adopting the attitude that He knew what was really important and what wasn't? If persecuting gay people was to be the centerpiece of His gospel , He would have made it so.

I'm not 100% sure Anglo-Scot is approaching this matter from a Christian position. I don't think he's brought religion into his arguments to date.

 

[Anglo-scot]

and when Muslim cab drivers refuse to pick up blind people who happen to have a seeing eye dog.........?

The problem I have with your point of view is that the attitude that is both bigoted and stupid is entirely voluntary. The Muslim CHOOSES to see dogs as unclean. The same goes with Christians who have adopted the sexual mores of ignorant nomads wandering the dessert three thousand years ago. You CHOOSE to follow such customs without so much as a scintilla of thought applied to how these mores came about, whether or not they involve harm, or whether they are worth investing such an enormous amount of your attention that could be spent elsewhere. If homosexuality were the veritable centerpiece of the faith you purport to follow, why didn't Jesus ever even mention it? Do you really see Him as so ineffectual and unfocused that it just slipped his mind and he forgot something that is so absolutely essential to his teachings as you are trying to make it?

Why not show some respect for Jesus, instead, by adopting the attitude that He knew what was really important and what wasn't? If persecuting gay people was to be the centerpiece of His gospel , He would have made it so.

If you want to start a thread about why the whole of Christian belief is junk, then do so. I'm sure you'll find some people to debate the issue with.

 

[Gardener]

I'm not 100% sure Anglo-Scot is approaching this matter from a Christian position. I don't think he's brought religion into his arguments to date.

I interpreted post #147 as indicating such.

 

[Gardener]

If you want to start a thread about why the whole of Christian belief is junk, then do so. I'm sure you'll find some people to debate the issue with.

So, my encouraging people to respect Jesus indicates the whole of Christian belief is junk?

Have you ever considered following various Christian dictates in regards to bearing false witness?

 

[Anglo-scot]

They're not. Dave's opposed to the Ashers' judge's decision. He's not a homophobe, he just disagrees with it. I'm not 100% in favour of it either. I was also against the Stonewall bus ads campaign mentioned earlier, as were plenty of people. It's not a question of everyone who opposes every gay rights initiative being homophobic, but some, perhaps a sizeable proportion of those in opposition to ANY gay rights initiative do indeed display their own homophobic agenda. Think NavyPride, Logicman, Hicup, now Anglo-Scot, etc etc... it's a long and shameful list.

That's another aspersion. I'm against abusing gays, criminalising gay sex, forced conversion therapy, employment discrimination and judging individuals for their behaviour. Probably in the 80s, this was considered enlightened or at least mainstream opinion. Developments in the gay rights agenda since then which we have touched on, I am generally against. That doesn't make me homophobic or if it does, it's a gratuitous insult. You consider that opposition to 2-dad babies is evidence of homophobia, and it's not even legal yet.

 

[Anglo-scot]

So, my encouraging people to respect Jesus indicates the whole of Christian belief is junk?

Have you ever considered following various Christian dictates in regards to bearing false witness?

Stop baiting me.

 

[alexa]

Well you're completely wrong - I believe what I believe because I believe it's right. Perhaps a younger person can blame their upbringing but I can't and won't.

You may though be wrong.

Sometimes believing in objective moral principles makes you unpopular and open to insults such as yours - so be it. Something is right or wrong in itself.

What you believe in is not objective moral principles. It is subjective ignorance.

On calling me homophobic, I refer you to my previous post in response to Andalablue. The slur of homophobia now just means opposition to the current orthodoxy of the current gay rights lobby. It adds nothing to debates on sexual ethics, except heat and moral blackmail.

You believe gay people are unnatural and immoral as you have inferred again above. That is sufficient and basic.

We disagree on morals and you have every right to disagree with me. My beliefs are shared by billions round the world. To label me as this or that is a very cheap and disappointing debating tactic. There's a bigger world out there of people not in the grip of sentimentalist morality.

It isn't disagreeing on morals. It is disagreeing on knowledge - a disagreement which allows you to have ideas which do harm people.

You appear to have the belief that people choose to be gay - otherwise how could you think it was immoral

Why would people 'choose' to be gay? | Dean Burnett | Science | The Guardian

and try this one http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/six-things-straight-people-should-stop-saying-about-gay-people/

 

[Anglo-scot]

You may though be wrong.



What you believe in is not objective moral principles. It is subjective ignorance.



You believe gay people are unnatural and immoral as you have inferred again above. That is sufficient and basic.


It isn't disagreeing on morals. It is disagreeing on knowledge - a disagreement which allows you to have ideas which do harm people.

You appear to have the belief that people choose to be gay - otherwise how could you think it was immoral

Why would people 'choose' to be gay? | Dean Burnett | Science | The Guardian

and try this one http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/six-things-straight-people-should-stop-saying-about-gay-people/

You misrepresent me once again. I don't believe that gay people are "unnatural and immoral". I referred to gay sex (activity) not gay people (people). If you hold to any objective code of ethics, you will find that all of us, including the believer him-or herself, will fall short of perfectly adhering to it.

I refer you again to the well-known story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus was clear that adultery was a sin ("go and sin no more") but also clear that he would not judge ("neither do I condemn you"). For me, it's one of the more accessible stories in the gospel - whatever we think of Christianity or religion. If Christians could copy Jesus' example, there would be a lot less hurt around - but we're not perfect.

Describing my views as "subjective ignorance" is just an insult.

I am pretty sure that most people who describe themselves as gay did not choose to be so. However, as gay sex, in my opinion, is immoral, if they cannot become heterosexual (accepted as being very difficult), then they should strive for celibacy. You don't have to agree with that - I am sure you don't, but it's a well-worn and reasonable opinion which most people in most parts of the world, in most eras, would not consider as homophobic.