The UK Supreme Court Backs Christian Baker over Gay Cake

Jun 2018
931
303
Toronto
#21
You only quoted part of my statements...

Do you understand that all this revolves around Civil Rights legislation which was created in response to Jim Crow type tactics?

While I understand your personal opinion, it's not one that is shared by an overwhelming majority. The majority support Civil Rights legislation which tells businesses they cannot discriminate based on race, religion, gender, national origin, etc. The majority support adding sexual orientation to that list.

I'm just saying you can't legislate attitudes in 100% of the population. Unless you are in communist China or North Korea.
 
Likes: Sabcat
Dec 2015
17,371
16,355
Arizona
#22
Look, if you don't like someone, you take your business elsewhere. You punish them with your wallet, maybe you burn down their bakery if you are a modern american leftist. But you don't go to the supreme court in order to force him to take your money.

That's insane.

You are completely missing the point. You sound like a 6 yr old saying he's going to take his toys and go home. Discrimination is ILLEGAL, whether it's based on race, religion, gender or lifestyle.
Business owners KNOW THIS when they own/open a business. Do you think we would be having this discussion if the patrons were BLACK and wanted a wedding cake---because there was a time not so long ago when this could have been the case?
 
Likes: leekohler2
Nov 2005
8,975
3,452
California
#23
I'm just saying you can't legislate attitudes in 100% of the population. Unless you are in communist China or North Korea.
Nobody is legislating attitudes.

In the real world, most customer service personnel behave understand the need to professionally and serve the customer. They are there to do a job and not try to turn their workplace into a faux extension of religious practice...
When I was in high school, I served people that I wanted to give a piece of my mind. But I did my job instead.


You are completely missing the point. You sound like a 6 yr old saying he's going to take his toys and go home. Discrimination is ILLEGAL, whether it's based on race, religion, gender or lifestyle.
Business owners KNOW THIS when they own/open a business. Do you think we would be having this discussion if the patrons were BLACK and wanted a wedding cake---because there was a time not so long ago when this could have been the case?
This is one of the things that boggles my mind about complaints on this topic. Too many approach it explicitly or implicitly like it's a new, over the top demand coming from gays that nobody should ever think is rational instead of dating back over 50 years to standards set by the Civil Rights Act that also protect Christians.
 
Likes: RNG
Jun 2012
41,958
15,179
Barsoom
#24
What the UK Supreme Court says:

He placed an order with Ashers for a cake iced with a depiction of the cartoon characters ‘Bert and Ernie’ and the words ‘Support Gay Marriage’. Mrs McArthur initially took the order but later advised Mr Lee that she could not in conscience produce such a cake and gave him a refund.​

What the UK Supreme Court does not says:

The UK case involved a cake the bakers would never sell to anybody. Period.​

What Masterpiece Cakeshop says:

To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs.​

What Masterpiece Cakeshop does not say:

The US Colorado case involved a cake the baker acknowledged he was explicitly forbidding to gay couples.​

What Johnathan Turley says:

Now Ireland has had its own challenge which is remarkably similar to Masterpiece Cakeshop including lower court rulings against the owners at the Ashers bakery, Daniel and Amy McArthur, in Northern Ireland by lower courts.​
 
Jun 2018
931
303
Toronto
#25
Nobody is legislating attitudes.

In the real world, most customer service personnel behave understand the need to professionally and serve the customer. They are there to do a job and not try to turn their workplace into a faux extension of religious practice...
When I was in high school, I served people that I wanted to give a piece of my mind. But I did my job instead.
So? You see this is the difference between right and left.
First of all, yes, you ARE legislating attitudes, will you start sending people to jail because they refuse to do their job?

Second I trust markets to regulate this much better. Gay friendly baker businesses and all. Selling overpriced cakes and be happy.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,179
Barsoom
#26
There is nothing illegal regarding discrimination in the Constitution. It is a subject that is not under the purview of the Constitution.
 
May 2018
4,096
3,057
USA
#27
Yeah, if you live in the UK. You list USA as your location & UK rulings mean squat here in the US.
Oh, they've already ruled RELIGIOUS pricks can discriminate in the USA. Must be pretty sweet to believe in fairy tales, get special privileges like the ability to discriminate.
 
Nov 2005
8,975
3,452
California
#28
So? You see this is the difference between right and left.
No.
If you look at the polls, conservatives support these civil rights as well.
You do not speak for "the right".


First of all, yes, you ARE legislating attitudes, will you start sending people to jail because they refuse to do their job?
Bakers? Who has been sent to jail?
Kim Davis had to go to jail because she interfered with civil rights.


Second I trust markets to regulate this much better. Gay friendly baker businesses and all. Selling overpriced cakes and be happy.
Then why don't conservatives do that regarding faux "conservative discrimination"?
e.g. Facebook, google
 
Nov 2005
8,975
3,452
California
#29
What the UK Supreme Court says:

He placed an order with Ashers for a cake iced with a depiction of the cartoon characters ‘Bert and Ernie’ and the words ‘Support Gay Marriage’. Mrs McArthur initially took the order but later advised Mr Lee that she could not in conscience produce such a cake and gave him a refund.​

What the UK Supreme Court does not says:

The UK case involved a cake the bakers would never sell to anybody. Period.​
The UK court didn't say that, because it's not relevant to their ruling.
The UK baker said that.


What Masterpiece Cakeshop says:

To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs.​

What Masterpiece Cakeshop does not say:

The US Colorado case involved a cake the baker acknowledged he was explicitly forbidding to gay couples.​
Jesus Jimmyb
I quoted exactly where they said that. So don't lie and pretend they didn't say that.


What Johnathan Turley says:

Now Ireland has had its own challenge which is remarkably similar to Masterpiece Cakeshop including lower court rulings against the owners at the Ashers bakery, Daniel and Amy McArthur, in Northern Ireland by lower courts.​
:rolleyes:
And this means what exactly???
I don't deny that the cases are "similar". They involve gay marriage and bakers who don't want to sell a requested cake.
Regardless, the two bakers are not making the same argument.


There is nothing illegal regarding discrimination in the Constitution. It is a subject that is not under the purview of the Constitution.
Was this intended to be a response to somebody?
Cause nobody is saying the Constitution includes anything "illegal regarding discrimination".

Or are you just throwing out truisms?