In my experience it's largely people who would have been considered part of the les community who are attempting to change the parameters though. AMAB non binary people and trans women have rarely been the ones causing problems.
That’s interesting. Do you think they are ashamed of being labelled ‘les’ even though they are same-sex attracted?
Huh, interesting question. I suppose they quite possibly are.
What an odd and completely disingenuous quote! The likes of the Daily Mail and Telegraph are enjoying a stick to bash the BBC with, of course, but it is completely hypocritical of the writer of whatever that column was wrote for to not even try and pretend if the shoe was on the other foot, the likes of The Guardian and The Metro wouldn’t be screaming from the rooftops about human rights.
I heard this story today. This woman sounds like an absolute imbecile and not very business-orientated! Personally I would take sly satisfaction in (if I truly disagreed with someone’s lifestyle/religion/sexuality/etc) fleecing them out of the most I could as “punishment”I see this was doing the rounds yesterday:
Strange for a painter decorator to refuse a job on a gay couple's house! The couple have declined to give her name, which is right and shows they've maintained their dignity in all this.
Once again it opens up the debate about the struggle between religious rights and same sex couples' rights. Few gay people would want to force a homophobe to work in their house, but I still find it bizarre in this day and age that some businesses refuse service to gay people.
In true DM fashion, the comments are mostly in support of the painter decorator.
Yeah I read that she had consulted with her church, which I took to mean she asked them if she should accept the job and they must have said no, because it would be akin to condoning the couple's 'lifestyle'. You've got to laugh because it's so pathetic.I heard this story today. This woman sounds like an absolute imbecile and not very business-orientated! Personally I would take sly satisfaction in (if I truly disagreed with someone’s lifestyle/religion/sexuality/etc) fleecing them out of the most I could as “punishment”
i think we’ve touched upon this point and disagreed with it when the story of the straight bakery/gay customers story came up, and I said that as long as the bakery is treating all customers equally from the baking/cooking part then that is fair, but the owners should not be forced into icing a message onto a cake they don’t agree with, just as much as gay business owners should not be forced into icing a homophobic or anti-gay marriage message on a cake.Yeah I read that she had consulted with her church, which I took to mean she asked them if she should accept the job and they must have said no, because it would be akin to condoning the couple's 'lifestyle'. You've got to laugh because it's so pathetic.
Interestingly, I noticed there's a smarty pants in the comments comparing it to Nigel Farage's banking situation. I guess they've identified Daily Mail readers who are happy to say this painter decorator should be allowed to pick and choose who she doesn't business with, while simultaneously being appalled that banks have refused to do business with Nigel Farage. Pretty much every comment they've made has been downvoted into oblivion, I guess by angry DM readers who know the person has a point (and no, it's not me haha).
Yeah I went back and forth on the gay cake thing, but ultimately I have to grudgingly accept that they do have the right not to bake a gay wedding cake because it's not right to force a business to do something.
i’m just being pedantic here but the point was they did legally have to bake a cake for them. If the bakery refused to bake a cake for them they would have lost their case immediately because of UK discrimination laws. The point and case was over forcing someone into publicly stating beliefs they don’t believe in, which works both and all ways, and which will arise discrimination laws.
That makes sense. I think they were asked to print a message that said "support gay marriage" or similar.
They were asked to design a cake with Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street on it that also contained a message of “support gay marriage”. It sounds inoffensive enough at the start but I have to fight for the rights of people to not be forced to write such stuff as much as gay people aren’t forced to write “gay marriage is evil/sinful” if someone is paying me.
Yep and - let's face it - I'd say 99% of bakeries would happily accept such an order, because most businesses like making money.
Props to the couple for not naming and shaming. Not sure I would have been so magnanimous.I see this was doing the rounds yesterday:
Strange for a painter decorator to refuse a job on a gay couple's house! The couple have declined to give her name, which is right and shows they've maintained their dignity in all this.
Once again it opens up the debate about the struggle between religious rights and same sex couples' rights. Few gay people would want to force a homophobe to work in their house, but I still find it bizarre in this day and age that some businesses refuse service to gay people.
In true DM fashion, the comments are mostly in support of the painter decorator.
I think it’s down to principles(and money!) in general. If you owned a bakery and was flat out broke maybe you would ice a cake with an anti gay message on it if it meant keeping your electricity on and your business running and it just meant keeping your mouth shut and your emotions closed off as you did it. But if you were in a more fortunate financial position and could affordably turn commissions down, then you would absolutely not even consider taking on a request like that.Yep and - let's face it - I'd say 99% of bakeries would happily accept such an order, because most businesses like making money.
I personally wouldn't name and shame her because then it opens the floodgates to people sending nasty messages. I obviously completely condemn homophobia, but I also don't think it'd be right to send her hateful messages.
I think a more apt comparison would be if I was asked to bake a pro religious message along the lines of "Support Christianity!" I'm no longer religious, but I wouldn't really care about a message like that. I don't espouse such views myself, but it's a job.
This is going to sound bad of me. I also agree not naming and shaming her as the results would be horrific and I would never take that course of action myself, against anyone, but I kind of feel glad and pleased that, while nameless, she’s in the media eye and people are publicly disapproving of her( and others are also publicly supporting her, but disapproval is more impactive than support)
I don't think that sounds bad to be honest. I think she should know that many disapprove of her beliefs in this day and age. She thought nothing of causing offence to the couple by texting them her beliefs, so if she were to be annoyed about others sharing their beliefs, it'd be a bit rich!
Going to sound like a broken record, but rights aren’t pieces of pie. Which is why, until the trans insanity threw everything up in the air, a person could not reasonably state they had a problem with homosexuality without explicitly saying they had a problem with it. Which is fine, everyone has their beliefs and as long as remaining respectful and in accordance with the law, people have as much right in this country to be anti homosexuality as much as I have a right to be a lawful gay man. Recent problems have arisen because this desire to create laws around blatant lies directly trample over just about everyone else’s rights.
