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

[Andalublue]

I interpreted post #147 as indicating such.

I stand corrected. He's doing the 'lover the sinner, hate the sin' schtick at the moment, or as I prefer to think of it, 'love the bummer, hate the bum'.

 

[Anglo-scot]

I stand corrected. He's doing the 'lover the sinner, hate the sin' schtick at the moment, or as I prefer to think of it, 'love the bummer, hate the bum'.

How nice - sarcasm this time. Some people have different moral views to yours - get over it.

 

[Andalublue]

How nice - sarcasm this time. Some people have different moral views to yours - get over it.

Oh, do stop baiting me!

 

[Gardener]

Stop baiting me.

Start telling the truth and I will have no need to point out your falsehoods.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

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

Ok thanks. I think the 3 day delay probably was a weak evidential point for them, as it made them look more like the conscientious objection was calculated later on and was not an instinctive response. But, speaking from experience, it's not easy to make sense of complex ethical issues quickly, when you've not thought about them before. Sometimes, people compromise without thinking, then feel uneasy over time, and later renege. For others who don't share the same feelings, it can look from the outside like it's not genuine.

In this case, I cannot agree. Three days was far too long a period to consider ethical issues. If the company had issues with messages and pictures they might not wish to produce they should not have taken Mr Lees money right from the outset.

Better still, they could have as they have now done - minimised such risk by making it clear what their business model was to any potential customer.

-- Seemed obvious to me. :shrug:

It would what?

See your own words.

 

[alexa]

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). (cut for space)

You believe that outright calling of the sexual activity of a group with a minority sexual orientation as 'unnatural and immoral' is not a condemnation of the group itself. Nice try. You may even be fooling yourself.

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"). cut for space

But really you are saying "I have nothing against the black person except that he is black."

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

No it is the truth as I see it.

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),

You have there a conflict in your thinking or more likely as usual you are trying to say the right thing. You believe some people choose to be gay and you believe some of them can even become heterosexual. You do not have knowledge of homosexuality. Hence why I said subjective ignorance – or if you want Fundamentalist religious ignorance. It is ignorance and it leads to conclusions which are harmful to others.

those who believe people “choose to be gay” most often see being gay as a “behavior” and not an intrinsic part of a person’s being. *Behaviors, they reason, are controllable and changeable and therefore, they conclude, sexual attraction is controllable, if not changeable. *When sexual orientation is seen as a choice and a behavior, people are less likely to extend civil rights and inclusion in the church for gay, lesbian and bisexual people.
This one issue is the key and it took a long time and many relationships for me to understand. *What you believe either unlocks the passage to equality or it keeps the door shut and segregates. *It is the premise upon which most of the insights I offer builds.

http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/ten-things-i-wish-i-knew-ten-years-ago-about-gay-people/

then they should strive for celibacy.

I will let the above Christian site continue

Asking gay people to deny their natural sexual orientation is destructive. Recall, homosexual orientation is no more a “behavior” than is heterosexual attraction. Both are orientations, innate attractions. Reparative therapy (Exodus-type programs that offer results that take away “unwanted sexual attractions” or allude to a gay-to-straight conversion) treats homosexuality as if it were a “behavior” akin to other life choices like drug and alcohol usage, adultery, cheating and lying.

-SNIP-

The rejection or insistence on change is destructive. Statistics on gay youth prove this. Gay youth, unaccepted by family, are:

eight times more apt to attempt suicide than those who are accepted
six times more susceptible to depression than those who are accepted
three times more likely to get involved in drug and alcohol abuse than gay youth that are accepted
three time more likely to contract HIV/AIDS and STD”D than gay youth that are accepted?

If a person is indeed gay, then no amount of a wishin’ and a hopin’ and a prayin’ will make them straight.

http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/ten-things-i-wish-i-knew-ten-years-ago-about-gay-people/

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.

I think you come in quite well with this part of ADL's definition

Prejudiced views directed at homosexuals often stem from the perception that homosexual activity is immoral. Homophobia makes some people think that they are superior to homosexuals. In fact, studies show that anti-gay bias is far more accepted among large numbers of Americans than is bias against other minorities.

Many researchers claim that homosexuals still find themselves the target of bias within institutions like churches and professional organizations. Many church and religious groups maintain that homosexual behavior is a sin and runs counter to the will of God as expressed in certain Biblical passages.

What is Homophobia

 

[sangha]

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

My "terms of abuse" as you call them are not directed at another debater. Yours are.

Yes, it is morally superior and far more polite to insult and attack people who are not here to defend themselves. :roll:

 

[sangha]

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.

You describe his beliefs as homophobic, and he thinks you called *him* a homophobe. How ironic is it that he is having a problem distinguishing between the person and the cause?

 

[sangha]

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.

He's used Bibe stories to illustrate the morality of his position, a position he repeats in post 400

 

[sangha]

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

In this case, I cannot agree. Three days was far too long a period to consider ethical issues. If the company had issues with messages and pictures they might not wish to produce they should not have taken Mr Lees money right from the outset.

Better still, they could have as they have now done - minimised such risk by making it clear what their business model was to any potential customer.





See your own words.

Don't you see?

The business itself was so unclear about what it does and does not support that it took an order to do something it objects to , but the guy who went into the bakery and ordered the cake should have known not to go there for his "gay cake" (because it was a christian bakery even though it was not a Christian bakery) but did so anyway because he was a "mischief maker" :roll:

 

[Anglo-scot]

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

In this case, I cannot agree. Three days was far too long a period to consider ethical issues. If the company had issues with messages and pictures they might not wish to produce they should not have taken Mr Lees money right from the outset.

Better still, they could have as they have now done - minimised such risk by making it clear what their business model was to any potential customer.





See your own words.

OK - that's as maybe, but ultimately the judgment didn't turn on the delay. On the judge's analysis, Ashers would have been stuffed, whenever the order was refused.

I thought more about posting a thread about the Muslim bakeries featured in the video, but probably it would be baiting even if it would be interesting too.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

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

Don't you see?

The business itself was so unclear about what it does and does not support that it took an order to do something it objects to , but the guy who went into the bakery and ordered the cake should have known not to go there for his "gay cake" (because it was a christian bakery even though it was not a Christian bakery)

I will hazard a guess that Ashers were naive in the extreme and felt that no such order would ever come their way. This is often also how laws are tested and clarified for others to understand - lawmakers often say laws need to be tested through court and judgements made by the judiciary.

Any future christian owners of bakeries will now know they need to be clearer in their business model and on their website. I also think a lot of such companies may have to review their online ordering systems too.

but did so anyway because he was a "mischief maker" :roll:

I had my suspicions originally when I read that he was a gay rights campaigner but further reading showed me otherwise. Ashers did not make their position clear and the law has forced them to clarify their position.

-- I thought more about posting a thread about the Muslim bakeries featured in the video, but probably it would be baiting even if it would be interesting too.

It wouldn't be discussed or touched by those posting in this thread. Make sure to post in the right forum (the bakeries were in the US) if you do though.

 

[Anglo-scot]

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

In this case, I cannot agree. Three days was far too long a period to consider ethical issues. If the company had issues with messages and pictures they might not wish to produce they should not have taken Mr Lees money right from the outset.

Better still, they could have as they have now done - minimised such risk by making it clear what their business model was to any potential customer.

See your own words.

Just chanced across this article Martin Sheen boycotted Grace and Frankie scene over 'awful' penis-shaped bucking bronco - News - TV & Radio - The Independent

Martin Sheen objected to doing a particular gay scene, saying he was a "prude", despite being on record as a supporter of gay rights. Fortunately, the director said that "that was his opinion" and got someone else to do it. To me this is a good example of someone running into an ethical dilemma in the moment and exercising their judgment in accordance with their conscience. Clearly the director didn't see it coming and could have said to Mr Sheen - you agreed to do a gay film, what are you complaining about, just get on with it.

Perhaps she could have sued him, saying that she had to go to the trouble and expense of getting a body double, and that he upset her and the gay community with his self-confessed "prudishness". Surely the gay community will be deeply offended by his judgment on them (no difference between activity and person allowed).

Will Mr Sheen now advertise his services more carefully in future, spelling out what kind of gay scenes he won't do because of his squeamishness?

Or does Mr Sheen have more rights to be selective about his work than a baker because he's famous and a supporter of SSM?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

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

Just chanced across this article Martin Sheen boycotted Grace and Frankie scene over 'awful' penis-shaped bucking bronco - News - TV & Radio - The Independent

Martin Sheen objected to doing a particular gay scene, saying he was a "prude", despite being on record as a supporter of gay rights. Fortunately, the director said that "that was his opinion" and got someone else to do it. To me this is a good example of someone running into an ethical dilemma in the moment and exercising their judgment in accordance with their conscience. Clearly the director didn't see it coming and could have said to Mr Sheen - you agreed to do a gay film, what are you complaining about, just get on with it.

Perhaps she could have sued him, saying that she had to go to the trouble and expense of getting a body double, and that he upset her and the gay community with his self-confessed "prudishness". Surely the gay community will be deeply offended by his judgment on them (no difference between activity and person allowed).

Will Mr Sheen now advertise his services more carefully in future, spelling out what kind of gay scenes he won't do because of his squeamishness?

Or does Mr Sheen have more rights to be selective about his work than a baker because he's famous and a supporter of SSM?

That would have been under US law so I am not touching it - if the filming had been in the EU /UK that would be another matter entirely.

May sound like a cop-out but I tend to try steer well clear of US matters. (I usually comment on police enforcement issues though)

 

[Andalublue]

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

It wouldn't be discussed or touched by those posting in this thread. Make sure to post in the right forum (the bakeries were in the US) if you do though.

I don't know about the others, but I'd be happy to discuss it. I've heard this point raised several times by Christians who have come into conflict over discrimination issues. "If we were a Moslem bakery/guest house/business, no one would complain." I'm not aware of any such issues of discrimination by Moslem businesses in comparable circumstances. That could either be because a) the Christians are right, and no one would dream of asking a Moslem business to cater to gay customers, or b) there just aren't that many Moslem businesses in the service sector, or c) Moslem-run businesses don't discriminate quite as readily or overtly as militant Christians do. I'm not really in a position to know which may be the predominant reason. My instinct would tell me c) is the more likely, but I could be wrong.

 

[Anglo-scot]

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

That would have been under US law so I am not touching it - if the filming had been in the EU /UK that would be another matter entirely.

May sound like a cop-out but I tend to try steer well clear of US matters. (I usually comment on police enforcement issues though)

Ok fair enough. Though I would like to take this opportunity to announce to readers of this thread my first act as new member of the Debate Politics Shameful Homophobes Club (to which I was condemned by Andalablue).

I would like us to appoint Martin Sheen as our patron. Like many of us, he has frequently asserted his support for gay rights. However, his support has now been exposed as spurious as a result of showing obvious distaste for and refusal to participate in homosexual acts which were reasonably requested in the course of his employment. He is an inspiration to us all.

 

[alexa]

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

I don't know about the others, but I'd be happy to discuss it. I've heard this point raised several times by Christians who have come into conflict over discrimination issues. "If we were a Moslem bakery/guest house/business, no one would complain." I'm not aware of any such issues of discrimination by Moslem businesses in comparable circumstances. That could either be because a) the Christians are right, and no one would dream of asking a Moslem business to cater to gay customers, or b) there just aren't that many Moslem businesses in the service sector, or c) Moslem-run businesses don't discriminate quite as readily or overtly as militant Christians do. I'm not really in a position to know which may be the predominant reason. My instinct would tell me c) is the more likely, but I could be wrong.

The video anglo-scot left was set in the US and was a deliberate attempt to get information on Muslims refusing to bake the cake for a gay marriage which all those filmed did by saying they did not do that sort of work and suggesting people who did. Again it was the US not here.

The whole base as far as I can see of this argument is that there is a deliberate harassment of Christians by 'Militant Gays' who would be terrified to do the same to Muslims. However in this instance when the man's contract for the cake was accepted the shop was not advertising itself as Christian.

 

[sangha]

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

It wouldn't be discussed or touched by those posting in this thread. Make sure to post in the right forum (the bakeries were in the US) if you do though.

Actually, it has been discussed. In several threads

 

[sangha]

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

Perhaps she could have sued him, saying that she had to go to the trouble and expense of getting a body double, and that he upset her and the gay community with his self-confessed "prudishness". Surely the gay community will be deeply offended by his judgment on them (no difference between activity and person allowed).

Will Mr Sheen now advertise his services more carefully in future, spelling out what kind of gay scenes he won't do because of his squeamishness?

Umm, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that his refusal to do the scene had nothing to do with any objection or bias to homosexuality as he was playing the role of a homosexual. His objection was to sexual explicitness.

The penis shaped pink horse was not gay. It was a prop. It had no sexual orientation.

 

[Gardener]

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

Umm, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that his refusal to do the scene had nothing to do with any objection or bias to homosexuality as he was playing the role of a homosexual. His objection was to sexual explicitness.

The penis shaped pink horse was not gay. It was a prop. It had no sexual orientation.

Some people have a more difficult time figuring things out than others.

I'm thinking here that there may be at least the slightest possibility that Meryl Streep would refuse to perform a straight watersports scene or that Dame Judy Dench might have some slight reservations when it comes to a potential performance involving S & M latex midgets.

 

[Andalublue]

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

I'm thinking here that there may be at least the slightest possibility that Meryl Streep would refuse to perform a straight watersports scene or that Dame Judy Dench might have some slight reservations when it comes to a potential performance involving S & M latex midgets.

Maybe, but man! that'd be good box office, wouldn't it?

 

[Gardener]

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

Maybe, but man! that'd be good box office, wouldn't it?

Word on the street has it that Maggie Smith and Christopher Lee are lined up to play the lead roles in "Fifty Varieties of Wrinkle".

 

[Andalublue]

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

Word on the street has it that Maggie Smith and Christopher Lee are lined up to play the lead roles in "Fifty Varieties of Wrinkle".

Well Anglo-Scot landed the lead in 50 Hades of Gay, so anything's possible. :nails

 

[Infinite Chaos]

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

I don't know about the others, but I'd be happy to discuss it. I've heard this point raised several times by Christians who have come into conflict over discrimination issues. "If we were a Moslem bakery/guest house/business, no one would complain." I'm not aware of any such issues of discrimination by Moslem businesses in comparable circumstances. That could either be because a) the Christians are right, and no one would dream of asking a Moslem business to cater to gay customers, or b) there just aren't that many Moslem businesses in the service sector, or c) Moslem-run businesses don't discriminate quite as readily or overtly as militant Christians do. I'm not really in a position to know which may be the predominant reason. My instinct would tell me c) is the more likely, but I could be wrong.

I don't think there have been any cases in the UK or Europe yet that I know of.

- However in this instance when the man's contract for the cake was accepted the shop was not advertising itself as Christian.

Agree with this and as I have said also, they took the man's money and held it for 3 days. This last weakened any case they may have had.

 

[Anglo-scot]

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

For information, judgment will be appealed. Bakers At Centre of Gay Marriage Cake Row Fight On: "We Will Appeal This Wrong Decision" - Breitbart