Gaycake

[Sweep]

Indeed, especially as his Dad was a joiner, and never actually fucked his mum to get her up the duff.

 

It all makes sense now.

 

 

Spent all of his time hanging around with 12 other blokes

[no balls]

Don't be dissing Mohammed like that, Smiffs or you'll be getting one of them fatwas too

[Smiffs]

Yeah but at least I then get to shag 100 virgins

[Carlos]

Was this for Bi E's not gay mates?

[no balls]

Yeah but at least I then get to shag 100 virgins

100 shit shags? They're an odd bunch

[White on Tyne]

Nice for the bakers to have the luxury of turning away customers they don't like. I imagine most of us on here have to deal with customers we don't necessarily like or approve of but business dictates you have to take the business where you can.

[Maggie Tate]

I disagree. I don't think a rational member of the public should have to worry about whether or not they will be served because of something as inherently irrational as religious belief.

 

Companies and individuals have the right to be irrational if they so choose and should be treated as grown up enough to take the consequences. The upshot of this incident is that the company looks daft and Northern Ireland looks about fifteen years behind the rest of the UK, which is the reality in almost all its social issues. A Catholic bakery would equally have refused to bake a cake depicting an unborn child being dragged from a vagina by an abortionist with forceps.

 

As is their right.

 

Just for arguments sake. What if they refused to bake the cake because of the skin colour of the potential customer?

 

Undesirable, unjustifiable, backward, appalling. And their right if they wish to do so. Society has worked out or itself that racism is bad without the government's help. In fact, things like quotas and positive discrimination measures brought in by governments have hindered the process.

 

Almost every walk of modern British life would immeasurably improve if the government kept its nose out.

[bgoefc]

???? I'll go with that.

[only1swanny]

If someone refused to make something. . You would go elsewhere. .

 

You certainly wouldn't want to eat a cake from some that's been made to under threat of legal action. .. do they then start legal action if it doesn't taste "fabulous"..

 

Fwiw im open minded etc however as a normal functioning bloke I would plainly refuse to make a cake that has two pre-school tv characters snogging regardless of them being gay black Muslim or normal.

 

It's a bit messed up wanting to see kids tv characters in that situation.

[madthatter]

Companies and individuals have the right to be irrational if they so choose and should be treated as grown up enough to take the consequences. The upshot of this incident is that the company looks daft and Northern Ireland looks about fifteen years behind the rest of the UK, which is the reality in almost all its social issues. A Catholic bakery would equally have refused to bake a cake depicting an unborn child being dragged from a vagina by an abortionist with forceps.

 

As is their right.

 

 

Undesirable, unjustifiable, backward, appalling. And their right if they wish to do so. Society has worked out or itself that racism is bad without the government's help. In fact, things like quotas and positive discrimination measures brought in by governments have hindered the process.

 

Almost every walk of modern British life would immeasurably improve if the government kept its nose out.

 

Best thing i've read on here on any discussion on racism, inequality etc.

 

The crazy thing is that about 10 years ago you would be considered (and I speak from personal experience) racist, xenophobic or worse for stating such a thing.

 

On a side note - I read a report recently that white working class boys have fell massively behind other 'ethnic groups' in our education system.  I can only speak for Manchester area but I once discussed this with an educational psychologist who agreed that Manchester council had in effect created white ghettos due to channeling all funding to 'ethnic areas'.  There has been so much wrong with so many policies of integration but no-one sane (or at least grounded in reality) seems to have been let anywhere near them.  

 

It does seem like we are turning a corner though as new legislation highlights tokenism and positive discrimination as backwards.  Hopefully, equal ops forms will soon be dispensed with as well.

 

It all goes to show that if we think rational people make rational decisions for the best of everyone we are severely misguided.  World is run by self-serving fools, imo

Edited July 9, 2014 by madthatter

[kent_white]

Companies and individuals have the right to be irrational if they so choose and should be treated as grown up enough to take the consequences. The upshot of this incident is that the company looks daft and Northern Ireland looks about fifteen years behind the rest of the UK, which is the reality in almost all its social issues. A Catholic bakery would equally have refused to bake a cake depicting an unborn child being dragged from a vagina by an abortionist with forceps.

 

As is their right.

You've picked a particularly graphic example there. I think you could reasonably refuse to bake something like that on the grounds of decency and good taste, without having to bring a religious element into it.

 

Of course it is preferable for society to self police. Perhaps that will happen in this case given the publicity surrounding it. However, I'd like to move toward a society where people aren't treated differently because of whether they are gay or straight. If that means that government has to get involved where there is blatant bigotry then so be it. Not an ideal state of affairs, I'll give you that, but a necessary one.

[DazBob]

Presumably gay cakes have a slight whiff of lavender?

[madthatter]

You've picked a particularly graphic example there. I think you could reasonably refuse to bake something like that on the grounds of decency and good taste, without having to bring a religious element into it.

 

Of course it is preferable for society to self police. Perhaps that will happen in this case given the publicity surrounding it. However, I'd like to move toward a society where people aren't treated differently because of whether they are gay or straight. If that means that government has to get involved where there is blatant bigotry then so be it. Not an ideal state of affairs, I'll give you that, but a necessary one.

Fair point.   But when the people interfering make things worse, confuse folk, put up more barriers and create more segregation and separation in the process, then it is clearly an approach that has failed.

 

I'm sure lots of posters are well read on this subject and have their own experiences and views but for me, people will always segregate and separate to some degree - it's in our psychological make up.  I'm this, you're that etc.  Within and without race effect I believe it's called, but can be applied to any perceived social group .  We use similar cognitive processes to understand the world around us e.g. scientific categorisations

 

No amount of government or outside agency involvement will change us from what we ALL are like.  

 

The positive bit to this theory though is that studies show that most people begin to see 'different' people as part of 'their own' once they have spent some time together.  imo, we need to spend more time focusing on what makes us all human, and share in that common experience, and less time banging on about how different we all are because; we bum men, praise Allah, go to Church, follow BWFC or whatever else we feel defines us.

 

So if your homophobic, treatment should be spending a week at a gay couples house;)

[Maggie Tate]

You've picked a particularly graphic example there. I think you could reasonably refuse to bake something like that on the grounds of decency and good taste, without having to bring a religious element into it.

 

 

I'm not sure I follow, but I agree - I think - that a business should be allowed to refuse any trade it doesn't want. It might be insane to do so, but we ought to have the right to behave stupidly and take the consequences society will dish out to do us. The example I chose was to illustrate that any trade could be refused if the business has especially strong feelings about it. It happens all the time. There are protests about who we make arms for. Some stupid people nowadays boycott Israeli goods like they used to South African fruit. In the context of Northern Ireland abortion is one of those subjects. Not that anyone would have a Happy Abortion cake, but that's not the point. Lots of people are more upset by things other than abortion - golf, for instance. But who decides? Why is a Happy Abortion cake any more offensive than a golf cake? Why should the government be involved in matters of human tastes? Why should we think that the government can be trusted to be the arbiter of what is and is not an offensive thing to have on a cake?

 

Of course it is preferable for society to self police. Perhaps that will happen in this case given the publicity surrounding it. However, I'd like to move toward a society where people aren't treated differently because of whether they are gay or straight. If that means that government has to get involved where there is blatant bigotry then so be it. Not an ideal state of affairs, I'll give you that, but a necessary one

 

 

Society does self police and by and large in modern day UK gays are treated the same as straights - without government help.  There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that government can add anything useful. My old local in Leigh is an old mon's pub run by a gay couple. Any incident of racism against the odd few black lads who go in there from time to time would be dealt with by the locals before anyone thought to get the state involved and the offenders would be dealt with much quicker and harsher to boot. This cake business in Northern Ireland will probably suffer. OK, not probably, but maybe. It is the thin end of quite a large wedge to tell businesses that they can be punished for refusing certain trade.

 

Northern Ireland is a religiously quite conservative place. It's not at all a bad place to be gay unless you want to get married there. That is the way most of its people like it. I would of course prefer that abortion was allowed and that gays could marry there, but democracy has a meaning. It should not be besmirched by insistence on an unpopular outcome.

 

 

Fwiw im open minded etc however as a normal functioning bloke I would plainly refuse to make a cake that has two pre-school tv characters snogging regardless of them being gay black Muslim or normal.

 

It's a bit messed up wanting to see kids tv characters in that situation.

 

Small point of order, but they weren't snogging. It was just a picture of Bert and Ernie and the slogan 'Support Gay Marriage.'

Edited July 9, 2014 by Maggie Tate

[kent_white]

I'm not sure I follow, but I agree - I think - that a business should be allowed to refuse any trade it doesn't want. It might be insane to do so, but we ought to have the right to behave stupidly and take the consequences society will dish out to do us. The example I chose was to illustrate that any trade could be refused if the business has especially strong feelings about it. It happens all the time. There are protests about who we make arms for. Some stupid people nowadays boycott Israeli goods like they used to South African fruit. In the context of Northern Ireland abortion is one of those subjects. Not that anyone would have a Happy Abortion cake, but that's not the point. Lots of people are more upset by things other than abortion - golf, for instance. But who decides? Why is a Happy Abortion cake any more offensive than a golf cake? Why should the government be involved in matters of human tastes? Why should we think that the government can be trusted to be the arbiter of what is and is not an offensive thing to have on a cake?

 

 

Society does self police and by and large in modern day UK gays are treated the same as straights - without government help. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that government can add anything useful. My old local in Leigh is an old mon's pub run by a gay couple. Any incident of racism against the odd few black lads who go in there from time to time would be dealt with by the locals before anyone thought to get the state involved and the offenders would be dealt with much quicker and harsher to boot. This cake business in Northern Ireland will probably suffer. OK, not probably, but maybe. It is the thin end of quite a large wedge to tell businesses that they can be punished for refusing certain trade.

 

Northern Ireland is a religiously quite conservative place. It's not at all a bad place to be gay unless you want to get married there. That is the way most of its people like it. I would of course prefer that abortion was allowed and that gays could marry there, but democracy has a meaning. It should not be besmirched by insistence on an unpopular outcome.

I understand the whole social libertarian arguement. Live and let live and all that. But I don't think it's true that there is no reason whatsoever to think that Government can help. Surely a Government implements social policies because of the mandate it receives from the electorate? I find it hard to believe that without legislation like the sexual discrimination act, we'd be living in a much different (and less tolerant) country than we are at the moment.

[ZiggyStardust]

Not sure if its been mentioned, they didn't refuse to serve the customer based on sexuality. They refused to put the 'support gay marriage' slogan on the cake.As they have refused to put other slogans on cakes previously (offensive slogans, swearing etc).

Subtle difference, 

[Not in Crawley]

I understand the whole social libertarian arguement. Live and let live and all that. But I don't think it's true that there is no reason whatsoever to think that Government can help. Surely a Government implements social policies because of the mandate it receives from the electorate? I find it hard to believe that without legislation like the sexual discrimination act, we'd be living in a much different (and less tolerant) country than we are at the moment.

Very true, that's why Maggie's rather off the cuff catch all comment; 'Almost every walk of modern British life would immeasurably improve if the government kept its nose out.' is utter bobbins.

[Whites man]

Presumably gay cakes have a slight whiff of lavender?

 

The correct term is fairy cakes.

[Maggie Tate]

Very true, that's why Maggie's rather off the cuff catch all comment; 'Almost every walk of modern British life would immeasurably improve if the government kept its nose out.' is utter bobbins.

 

And yet not sensibly contested.

 

Where it begun with the sexual discrimination act it swiftly moved along onto quotas and women only shortlists. The work of a social engineer is never finished. In most cases it is best to ensure it is not started.

[kent_white]

Not sure if its been mentioned, they didn't refuse to serve the customer based on sexuality. They refused to put the 'support gay marriage' slogan on the cake.As they have refused to put other slogans on cakes previously (offensive slogans, swearing etc).

Subtle difference,

That's very true - I was thinking this as I was mulling it over in the car earlier on. Presumably they would have had no problem selling a homosexual couple a cake of any other description. I suppose that is the point in question.

[Not in Crawley]

And yet not sensibly contested.

 

Where it begun with the sexual discrimination act it swiftly moved along onto quotas and women only shortlists. The work of a social engineer is never finished. In most cases it is best to ensure it is not started.

No, you're right, not really. You know was well as I do it was a pretty vapid blanket statement. You don't need me to point out that.

[Maggie Tate]

And yet still this 'vapid blanket statement' is uncontested.

 

So even when you add something, you've got nothing to add. Great.

[Not in Crawley]

Sorry, I thought you'd be bright enough to see how incontestably stupid 'Almost every walk of modern British life would immeasurably improve if the government kept its nose out.' that is. 

 

If this is all you have to add, I wouldn't bother, and its certainly not worth my time bothering to show you - when you so obviously know - why it's farcical. 

[Maggie Tate]

Well enlighten me oh wise one. All you've given me so far is the sexual equality act, which, though admirable as a standalone, was the precursor for quotas, women only shortlists and other illiberal, anti-equality, anti-business measures which government interference demanded. This is now the fourth time in this thread you're being given the opportunity to tell the class why the idea that government withdrawal from a great many areas of British life is not a good idea, and so far you've provided fuck all.

[jules_darby]

The company said it couldn't make the cake because it went against their beliefs as a family ran bakery, and so the NI Equality commission threatened Legal Action unless they made it..

 

So basically despite it being against their beliefs and them supporting "traditional marriage"

I don't get 2 points here;

 

1) against their beliefs ok, but against their beliefs "as a family ran bakery"...what does that mean?because they employ family members that they are automatically against gay marriage? Or have I missed summat?

 

2) Why would this cake go against "supporting normal marriage"? It didn't say Gay marriage only did it?

 

I also think the issue about Bert and Ernie in an "embrace" or whatever because they are kids' cartoons is a bit odd...what if it was Homer and Marge, Ani and Wilma or Casino and Louis?