I agree with the bakers assuming the reason was actually true rather than the fact the couple were gay. If I was a baker, I’d not put a slogan on a cake if it was something religious. I don’t think its discriminatory but obviously the topic is tabliod and blogger fodder.

If I was a baker, I’d not put a slogan on a cake if it was something religious.

Speaking as someone very much in touch with their inner Woppit when it comes to religion, I would be happy to. If I had a problem with that then I wouldn’t open a cake shop.

How do you cope with Easter eggs, incidentally?

How do you cope with Easter eggs, incidentally?

please tell me what does chocolate and bunny’s have to do with religion?

p.s my kids didn’t get any easter eggs on easter sunday 😉

p.p.s easter is a pagan festival with no mention of it in the new testiment :p

I would if it was just a high street bakery catering to everyone which happened to be owned by muslims/sikhs/whoever. Which is exactly the case here.

It’s a different story if it’s a shop called “Ashers Christian Cakes” and there is adequate signage and indication that they won’t print anything which would go against their “faith”.

Ok, I guess that is where our opinions differ. If I were to walk into a high street bakery and asked for that and was told ” sorry, doing that for you disagrees with our beliefs but can we do anything else for you” my response would be ok thanks for letting me know, I’ll try somewhere else. I don’t believe everyone needs to advertise their faith or beliefs just on the off chance they might need to turn someone away for asking for something they are uncomfortable with.

Cougar – Moderator

How do you cope with Easter eggs, incidentally?

Same way everyone else does- just understand they have nothing to do with any extant religion.

please tell me what does chocolate and bunny’s have to do with religion?

Same thing as cake?

Same way everyone else does- just understand they have nothing to do with any extant religion.

Ah, I see. It’s a loophole because Chocolate. (-:

Incidentally, you never see “christians” refusing to serve prawn sandwiches or bacon butties to women on their period, or people wearing clothes with more then one type of cloth.

Isn’t that because Christians aren’t the same thing as Israelites, so don’t follow all the rules given to the latter?

Some would say that that makes them massive hypocrites, who have historically tailored their religion to disadvantage certain specific groups?

are you new to this religion malarkey?

Isn’t that because Christians aren’t the same thing as Israelites, so don’t follow all the rules given to the latter?

AFAIK “gods word™” has been edited several times, they haven’t deemed it necessary to remove these bits, just ignore/use as each individual/sect see fit.

you never see “christians” refusing to serve prawn sandwiches

That would be a shellfish attitude to take.

IGMC.

Cougar – Moderator

Ah, I see. It’s a loophole because Chocolate. (-:

My brother got me a Fundamentalist Easter Egg for a laugh, it came with a wee comic explaining to kids that chocolate eggs are totally something to do with the resurrection of christ, but it’s written in a way that makes it seem that they were going “You sure this is right? It really doesn’t make a lot of sense now I stop and think about it… If it symbolises the rock, why is it an egg? Why is it chocolate? Is this stuff even in the bible?”

I think they should remake Father Ted – just to cover this in an episode. It has all the ingredients.

Although I guess in many circles that would be considered blasphemy.

P.S I thought the easter egg represented new life ? The chocolate is just marketing – much like the man in the red suit with the white beard.

hels – Member

I think they should remake Father Ted – just to cover this in an episode. It has all the ingredients.

Although I guess in many circles that would be considered blasphemy.

Yeah, you definitely shouldn’t remake Father Ted without Dermot Morgan and Frank Kelly. Unless we can resurrect them using magic chocolate?

the greatape:

Isn’t that because Christians aren’t the same thing as Israelites, so don’t follow all the rules given to the latter?

The bits of the bible which refer to gay people in a derogatory way are in the same parts of the bible that refer to the eating of shellfish in the same negative terms, (Leviticus for example).

My point was that the homosexual texts seem to have lasted and been taken on by modern christians, but the shellfish texts are roundly ignored.

It almost seems that people are choosing the bits from their religious text to pay attention to purely on the basis of their own prejudices.
(Yes Donk I am being sarcastic :O)

There was a guy who tried to live for a year obeying all of the rules in the old testament .. must look him up some time.

As Andrew L. Seidel says, “The road to atheism is littered with Bibles that have been read cover to cover.”

(edited for Seidel quote)

Unless we can resurrect them using magic chocolate?

What could be more easter than that?

There was a guy who tried to live for a year obeying all of the rules in the old testament .. must look him up some time.

Presumably he’s in a jail somewhere?

There was a guy who tried to live for a year obeying all of the rules in the old testament .. must look him up some time.

AJ Jacobs

Heres the chap.

Must read his book .. looks like he did a Ted talk as well.

eat the pudding – last time this topic came up I wondered this – the apparent selectively from Leviticus – and did some googling (infallible I know 🙂 ). There was NT stuff too about sexual morality, which was how the stance on homosexuality by some Christians did not, to them, conflict with their position on the relevance of OT laws given to Israel/Jews to Christians. As I understand it.

thegreatape
There is some stuff there but its a bit wooly and open to interpretation.

In any case, the point is that everyone reads “holy” books through the lens of their own predjudices.

For example when Jesus (apparently) said “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”.

Peaceful people think of it as a metaphorical, spiritual sword, for gainfully defending against the arguments of unbelievers.

Others consider it to be justification to flatten and sharpen an iron bar and stick it in them until they stop arguing.

You pay your money and take your choice :O)

To summarize, in the words of saint Billy of Connolly: “Never trust people who’ve only got one [blink]ing book”

There is some stuff there but its a bit wooly and open to interpretation.

That certainly seems to be the case.

its a bit wooly and open to interpretation.

in a religious text?

Never!

Cougar – Moderator

Same thing as cake?

its not the cake but the slogan on top, thought that was pretty obvious

its not the cake but the slogan on top, thought that was pretty obvious

And the eggs have “Easter” written on them.

its a bit wooly and open to interpretation.

So, I did a spot of Googling.

The first couple of hits are predictably pro-bible “no bumming”; for balance, here’s one:

http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html

But then there’s this which (hey, confirmation bias!) seems more measured.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ashford01.htm

An interesting point here is that it’s not just our interpretation which is important. We can argue all we like about what the bible means, but that bible has already been interpreted by someone else. One key thing here is that words like “natural” in their can be translated as “common” or “normal”; likewise, what we’re interpreting as “homosexual” could well have been intended to mean sexually exploitive.

And the eggs have “Easter” written on them.

can’t see easter on this one although thats just the packet not the actual egg

How do you think they would be treated by their community if it was then published that they made a cake directly denouncing their own faith/beliefs?

Which is their community, then?

poah – Member
I agree with the bakers assuming the reason was actually true rather than the fact the couple were gay. If I was a baker, I’d not put a slogan on a cake if it was something religious. I don’t think its discriminatory but obviously the topic is tabliod and blogger fodder

You like to call things or people gay all the time though…

Which is their community, then?

I couldn’t think of the better term at the time so went with community. I meant faith group or religious peers (actually these still sound correct when reading it back).

To ask another question would you order and buy a cake off a gay baker …… or some religious fool

i wouldnt give a toss as to who or what they are

Serious question; Why do religious beliefs get elevated to greater levels of importance than say, supertitions or phobias? Or other beliefs without substance? Is it just societal inertia, i.e. ‘this is how it’s always been so this is how it should be’?

I would say, yes, something like that. No-one has sufficient authority to say “this is all bollocks” and start dismantling the structures of religions. Well, not since Stalin.

Serious question;

That’s probably worthy of a thread in its own right.

Why do religious beliefs get elevated to greater levels of importance than say, supertitions or phobias?

think it got elevated because “the religions” used to be in charge, why do they remain elevated…dunno. Presumably people with enough influence like it that way. Whether that’s a tiny minority of politicians/media moguls/lizard overlords who use religion as a tool or a sizeable minority of true believers who all vote I’m not sure.

Probably a bit of both.

Can’t remember the figures but I think all the theists outnumber the atheists* in the UK, but that will include a lot of people who don’t follow their respective holy book and haven’t visited a place of worship in a long time, or never have, but – having not thought it through properly – reckon religion is probably a good thing or at the least, benign but well meaning, or just want to identify with a group.

*depending on how you ask/lead the question of course

And the eggs have “Easter” written on them.

Most of them don’t actually.

None of the ones we bought this year for family/friends/kids had any mention of Easter on them at all.

No-one has sufficient authority to say “this is all bollocks” and start dismantling the structures of religions. Well, not since Stalin.

And that went really well.

Murder, genocide, persecution and completely failed in it’s objective.

Serious question; Why do religious beliefs get elevated to greater levels of importance than say, supertitions or phobias? Or other beliefs without substance? Is it just societal inertia, i.e. ‘this is how it’s always been so this is how it should be’?

Religions gained power and influence and this was used to effectively become part of the ruling classes in order to maintain it. As is so often the case, people with power and privilege don’t like to give it up. See also misogyny, racism, xenophobia.

How do you think they would be treated by their community if it was then published that they made a cake directly denouncing their own faith/beliefs?

How do you think a Muslim/Hindu/Wee Free baker would be treated by other members of their religion in those circumstances?

Murder, genocide, persecution and completely failed in it’s objective.

sorry which religion we talking about here?

It’d probably be quicker to list the ones we’re not talking about.