From The Metro:
If the Supreme Court finds that Daniel and Amy McArthur discriminated for refusing to do a 'gay cak' (Metro, Wed), does this mean halal butchers can be forced to provide port to customers if asked?
Anon.
Possibly not the best analogy, but surely there is a Muslim cake shop somewhere we could use as a test-case? Ask them to lace a cake with alcohol and decorate it with a pig?
Wednesday, 9 May 2018
Reader's Letter of Last Week
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Or find a bakers run by gays and order a cake with "Straight Is Great" on it, with an image of a pair of buttocks below a 'No Entry' sign. I'd pay to watch that saga in court.
Or find a bakers run by gays and order a cake with "Straight Is Great" on it, with an image of a pair of buttocks below a 'No Entry' sign. I'd pay to watch that saga in court.
Oops!
PS, lovely, let's do that as well and piss everybody off.
Terrible analogy. This is about refusing to serve a class of people as opposed to refusing to provide a type of product or service. Utterly pathetic by this lot. A better analogy would be if a Halal butcher refused to serve non-Muslim customers, which would obviously be illegal.
'If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay' - end of story.
And Pen Sieve, what makes you think that butt stuff is limited to homosexual men? Don't knock it 'til you've tried it.
I'm reporting Mark Wadsworth and all the above commentators to the police for "hate speech". Tee hee.
Members,
The clue is in the "Straight Is Great".
M, the cake shop was not refusing to serve gays - that was the bed and breakfast case. If a gay person had asked them to make a cake saying "Happy 23rd birthday, Pete" I'm sure they would have made it.
RM what part of anything I said is hateful towards anybody? I was just wondering what would happen if the situation were reversed.
Mark, To prosecute someone for "hate speech" or a "hate crime" there is no need, bizarre as this may sound, to prove hatred. The word "hate" is just there for dramatic effect. We all know the REAL reason people get prosecuted for hate speech or hate crime: it's that they've said or done something politically incorrect. Thus as you rightly suggest, there's not a cat in hell's chance of a Muslim bakery being prosecuted for refusing to bake an alcohol laced cake. In fact the person ASKING for the cake would probably be prosecuted for being un-PC.
Obviously, we don't want our legal or state apparatus to discriminate in any way.
But I'm not sure individuals or firms shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. It's their loss at the end of the day.
I've been discriminated against because I'm white and male. A bit miffed, but so what? I respect peoples freedom to do what's best for them. Including not liking me, for whatever reason.
"for refusing to do a 'gay cak'"
You have to admit, "doing a gay cak" does sound like some dodgy sexual perversion.
"A bit miffed, but so what?"
They hurt your feelings? You must take them to court and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Nobody should be allowed to hurt anyone's feelings.
What would the situation be if they refused a 'Support Interracial Marriage' cake?
It's really lame trying to use a business as a pulpit, they could easily avoid this ridiculous situation by just not doing written messages on their goods.
50 years ago, allegedly, some B&Bs put signs up saying "no blacks, Irish or dogs".
I think that's a good idea. Make any preferences a business has in regard to who it will or won't deal made clear in public and mandatory. On their website, a sign outside their premises etc.
Then, anyone who discriminates and its not on their list, should be sued for breaching trading standards.
Personally, I'd give any business that discriminates a wide berth. I'm sure most people would too.
BJ, that's far too reasonable and anyway, what about the people who are offended simply by reading the list. They should have a right to sue somebody, surely?
Post a Comment