Christian bakery wins 'gay cake' ruling from UK supreme court

There was a really interesting study done on twins. One went into space - the other did not. When the fellow came back they were no longer identical twins. Environment can have an impact on one's genetics.

Then you have the feral children studies. If a kid does not learn language in the first years of life ( locked in a closet or some such thing) that person can never develop complex language skills. One can be born with a certain potential but if that potential is not exercised it can be lost.
Its called "critical period theory".

There are physical neural connections that go on in the brain in the first years of life. These connections are impacted/ dictated to some degree by external stimulus. As you get older things become set in place.

Regardless of whether it is one or the other - the gay person in general - does not "choose" who they are attracted to ... just like one does not choose to like grapes over mango.

 

The same Bible that their religion tells them that homosexuality is evil also tells them that wearing colored clothing is a sin. My question is why do Christians pick & choose which sins are unforgivable and which sins they can simply ignore?

 

I didn't label you ? I simply pointed out the various fallacies you committed.

I am a scientist and you have yet to debunk anything I said. In fact you have not even addressed the evidence presented. Why ? because you can not debunk it.

Then you turn around and commit more fallacy in trying to demonize the messenger rather than respond to the message (classic ad hom fallacy).. "anti science cultist belief".

Are you ready to be crushed like a bug ? Heh heh

 

That isn’t the question in this case at all (and I'd argue not in any of the similar cases either). The question here was “Did the business discriminate against the customer on the grounds of their sexual orientation?” and the answer was “No” (correctly, IMO).

Neither freedom of speech nor personal beliefs (religious or otherwise) are relevant to that legal question. It doesn’t matter how much a private business might be impacting a customer’s freedom of speech, it isn’t a breach of this law if they’re not doing it in a discriminatory manner and it doesn’t matter how strongly a business owner feels about the nature or actions of their customers (real or imagined), they’re still legally prohibited from discriminating on any of the specified grounds.

The laws themselves are generally very straight forwards. These situations are only made more complex by those people who wish to protest against the established balance of them (in both directions).

 

Agreed. Except when women are sexually abuse and turn Lesbian. Yes, it happens. I know someone personally abused by her dad growing up and even though she was attracted to men, only finds solace with women. Hasn't had a boyfriend since she was a teen. Been all women ever since.

 

Well in a odd sort of way yes! One could see it as the first time you came face to koochie and then received a slap for staring!

 

Sure - I will buy that. Environmental stimulus ( see later post) can cause changes in one's brain chemistry/structure.

Then there are those that are just born gay - which is the point really - that often this is not a "choice" - they just are.

Not that this should matter because even if it is a "choice" - Do we not want the freedom to choose a sexual partner for oneself in this nation ?

 

A salient point that seems to be glossed over here. The cake was literally supposed to say "Support Gay Marriage". That's a lot different then an owner simply refusing to serve gay customers because of his religious ideals.

 

or one can see it as legalized discrimination. it is time for the religious zealots to grow up.

 

That was not the ruling at all. It was regarding the type of cake being made for a particular event. They never refused to serve them. They refused to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. They could go in there today and order some deliciousness with no issue what so ever.

I'm atheist with a dash of deist but honestly have no issue with this ruling. I'd not expect a Muslim baker to make a bacon layered cake (Mmmm, bacon) nor would I ask Hindu restaurant to serve me beef kabobs.

 

Interesting - I did not know this. I thought the Judges decision was correct even without but that cements it further.

 

As much a I agree with you, people are entitled to their beliefs! As long as there are alternative "Whatever" to make whatever then let people do what they like as long as it doesn't physically hurt another..

I think the world is big enough and diverse enough that we can manage to get a set of lips surrounding fat chubby on a cake without having to force someone to make it

 

I'm not very religious, so you will have to ask someone that is. But I wouldn't have an issue for example if someone refused to make a red cake because it is against their religion. Let capitalism work, if you want a red cake in this scenario, and someone refuses to make it for you because red goes against their religion, go to the hundreds of other bakers that will make you a red cake.

 

I agree, let capitalism work. It's not the governments job to force people to provide services.

 

i am not stopping people from practicing their religion, but it is a business license, not a place of worship. this can too easily lead to carte blanch of who gets served.

 

Hey OP? Would you support a muslim bakery having to put "i love bacon" in a cake?

 

No need to be intrusive, and surely having a business license doesn't give you less opinion or personal rights. Like I say, plenty of places to have it made, no need to force anyone to do anything. To be honest, someone who has never made such a cake may not even have the experience to create a work of art like that!

So wouldn't you as a customer wanting dick want the very best dick money can buy, or are you just going to settle for any old frosted dick?

 

who doesnt want the best product when shopping. that said, should i choose a location, the last thing on my mind should not be whether or not the person is going to serve me. i also think the muslim cab drivers should be fired for not serving those with alcohol. treat everyone equally, no exceptions.

 

nope, i'd stand up for my values rather than become a 'sell out'...

 

And you would be wrong. The question is, can you force me to ignore my deeply held beliefs and us government to force me if I don't. Simple stuff here. This has nothing to do with discrimination. If my gay baker has produced cakes for me in the past, but if I asked him to violate his beliefs, I would expect that he was discriminating against me at that point, given your theory, right? I doubt that, and frankly doesn't make any sense.

 

No reasonable person would extract that from my post. I certainly don't have a problem with Americans being free to refuse service for any reason they want; all I ask is that they do not enjoy legal protection from the same act against them. That would create preferred citizenship

Making false claims about homosexuality being a proven psychological disorder may be an effective way of parading ignorance, but it doesn't make it true.

My sister in law is a veteran, runs a successful business, and is married to a female. She is no less of a citizen than someone who believes a zombie Jew is our savior.

 

Posted a thread from The Telegraph before seeing this. The zombie stupor of victim culture will eventually be history. This obnoxious little activist sh*t was actively looking for someone to persecute in his desire to force acceptance of his values. And he lost.

One in 50 people are gay. Looks like they're headed back to the closet where they belong.

 

No you didn't. You labeled with no evidence. Not a surprise of course.

LOL Oh my God you are claiming to be a scientist? Then present your evidence homosexuality is genetic. Second time I've asked you to do it. God this is going to be more fun than I thought.

And when I say evidence mr scientist I mean evidence not opinion or emotion.

 

No. Got anything else?

 

It's not an attack it's called a legal challenge..Notice that no torts were involved, or eaten..