Bakers who refused to make 'gay cake' say they felt 'victimised'

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

The baker's are christians and parts of christianity still oppose gay lifestyles and anything to do with gays so they were expressing their religious belief something that people are supposed to be able to do in this country or is it only islam that gets that freedom these days. There was absolutely no practical reason they couldn't have gone to another bakery without causing all this and as for the "why should they" part well in short no right is greater then another some might be more trendy but they are not more valuable.

It seems these days that people protest for rights they agree with whilst being happy to ignore the rights of others they don't agree with and just demonstrates how hypocritical society is becoming. This was a couple of faith asked to do something their faith opposed so they exercised their religious freedom only it's not a freedom now because christianity isn't one of those trendy things these days.

I do agree with your sentiments, entirely. Unfortunately, the fact remains that they broke the law. That is the madness of the era we are living in.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

It’s not the law that it should not be given to non Muslims (or Jewish people I guess) but that they should be the intended audience even if other people no doubt end up eating it. It’s certainly not illegal if at the point of sale they serve a someone who isn’t Muslim.

Non-Muslims are not eating halal slaughtered meat by choice, they don't get a choice in the first place. Eg Schoolchildren are fed halal meat regardless of whether are Muslim and if a council tries to change that, Muslims kick up a big fuss an d the council gives in.

Link

Plans to ban schools from serving unstunned halal meat have been delayed pending a legal challenge.
Lancashire County Council made the decision to stop using the meat in 27 council-run schools in October, saying it was "cruel" to not stun animals before slaughter.
Lancashire Council of Mosques is now seeking a judicial review claiming the authority did not consult adequately over the decision.

And surprise, surprise.

Council backtracks on halal school meals ban
Aidan Fortune · 26 January, 2018
Lancashire County Council has made a U-turn on its decision to only supply halal meat from animals that have been stunned before slaughter in school meals.

Link

A row has broken out after parents launched a campaign for a school not to serve only halal meat.
Hundreds of people have signed a petition objecting to dishing out meat killed in the traditional Islamic method.

...
The letter asked parents if "you would like Wolsey to become a halal school?"
"This would mean that all meat served in our kitchen will be halal meat only."

Link

Halal meat is being served to pupils in state schools without their knowledge, even if they believe the religious slaughter is cruel.
Parents have reacted furiously after being sent letters telling them their children's school dinners have been all-halal for 'some time'.
To conform with Jewish and Muslim religious tradition, animals are prepared for halal products by having their throats slit while conscious - a method many people believe is inhumane and which the RSPCA has condemned.

The LAW says it's inhumane.

At Lavender we are very proud of our school meals which are cooked fresh on the premises every day. Children can have a hot and healthy school meal, which costs £2.50 per day, or they can bring in a packed lunch from home. All of our meat is Halal.

Link

Despite recent reports to the contrary, many fast-food and restaurant chains in Britain have been using halal – in Arabic "permissible" or "lawful" – meat for years. Nearly 100 KFC outlets around the country serve halal-approved chicken, as do around 75 – a fifth – of Nando's. The sandwiches served in selected Subway stores have contained halal meat since 2007, while all Pizza Express chicken is halal.

How many more examples do you need?

The law is being broken on a truly industrial scale and nothing is being done about it.

For 4% of the population it's amazing the power they wield and sorry but halal meat is cruel and sets back the animal welfare advances we have made in the UK. Halal meat should be a niche product not a mainstream one and it should be highlighted prominently on packaging as I don't want to purchase any meat slaughtered in that way.

Originally Posted by nomadking

The law is being broken on a truly industrial scale and nothing is being done about it.

What law are you referring too? You've offered a slew of stories there and I cannot read each one to get to the heart of the issue you're complaining about.

My reading of the 'guidance' that has been previously posted is that all the slaughter houses would need to prove is that they're intending to supply places which will serve Muslims but not exclusively Muslims. In the example of schools if those schools had Muslim students then that would probably qualify.

If you saying these schools should offer a choice then ok but that's not really the issue I was addressing. I was saying it's not illegal to serve Halal meat to non-Muslims.

How many more examples do you need?

Of what? You seem to think I am making a different point to that which I am making....

[tweetiepooh]

Wonder if the school ever serves pork? Muslim pupils could have the veggie option. But this is a little different to the original case and conversation and it's likely pupils don't have an option to eat elsewhere.

The topic is that the baker feel victimised and I think that they have been. It may be a legal victimisation but it's still ruling that their faith position is now not legal.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

The topic is that the baker feel victimised and I think that they have been. It may be a legal victimisation but it's still ruling that their faith position is now not legal.

It's not ruling that their faith position is illegal but that they weren't entitled to refuse a gay couple the service they provide based on their faith.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

For 4% of the population it's amazing the power they wield and sorry but halal meat is cruel and sets back the animal welfare advances we have made in the UK. Halal meat should be a niche product not a mainstream one and it should be highlighted prominently on packaging as I don't want to purchase any meat slaughtered in that way.

Halal meat should be banned in this country, full stop. There is no justification for treating animals in this way, and incidentally, the Koran does not require it. This is just another case of religious fanatics making up the rules as they go along.

They will be wanting to bring back crucifixions next on the basis of 'well, that's what they did back in the day".

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Halal meat should be banned in this country, full stop. There is no justification for treating animals in this way, and incidentally, the Koran does not require it. This is just another case of religious fanatics making up the rules as they go along.

They will be wanting to bring back crucifixions next on the basis of 'well, that's what they did back in the day".

They would have to ban Kosher meat as well if they did that.

Some Halal meat is stunned (electrically, not with a bolt gun) before slaughter - I don't know why that can't be standard.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Wonder if the school ever serves pork? Muslim pupils could have the veggie option. But this is a little different to the original case and conversation and it's likely pupils don't have an option to eat elsewhere.

The topic is that the baker feel victimised and I think that they have been. It may be a legal victimisation but it's still ruling that their faith position is now not legal.

If you break the law, you will be prosecuted, tweetiepooh.

You can't argue that your 'faith' made you commit the offence!

Incidentally, I have little sympathy with either party, to tell the truth. They both sound pretty objectionable to me.

[tweetiepooh]

I'm not questioning that breaking the law means you may get punished but that the law is punishing them for their faith. In this case they were not making a statement against the customer (I hate you) but refusing to support a statement made by the customer (support gay marriage) and there is a key difference here.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

I'm not questioning that breaking the law means you may get punished but that the law is punishing them for their faith. In this case they were not making a statement against the customer (I hate you) but refusing to support a statement made by the customer (support gay marriage) and there is a key difference here.

They are not being punished for their 'faith'. They are being punished for breaking the law.

[nomadking]

If selected branches of Subway, KFC, Nandos, and others can (illegally) select Halal only, thereby rejecting bacon, pork and other haram or non-halal meats based upon their faith, then these bakers can be selective about any messages on the cakes.

It could just as easily have been a heterosexual customer who ordered the cake with that message, or a different message that the bakers also didn't approve of.

Originally Posted by nomadking

If selected branches of Subway, KFC, Nandos, and others can (illegally) select Halal only, thereby rejecting bacon, pork and other haram or non-halal meats based upon their faith, then these bakers can be selective about any messages on the cakes.

Not really the same thing. You can choose what you stock but if you offer a service you cannot choose not to offer it to someone based on their religion. I agree it's a different case if you're being compelled to write a message but then if that's what you offer then in this case the court found it counted.

If they sold pre-made cakes which didn't have this message then they would not be breaking the law.

Incidentally calling something illegal doesn't make it illegal. Which is why Subway, KFC, Nandos and others are not in trouble.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

Not really the same thing. You can choose what you stock but if you offer a service you cannot choose not to offer it to someone based on their religion. I agree it's a different case if you're being compelled to write a message but then if that's what you offer then in this case the court found it counted.

If they sold pre-made cakes which didn't have this message then they would not be breaking the law.

Incidentally calling something illegal doesn't make it illegal. Which is why Subway, KFC, Nandos and others are not in trouble.

You can't choose to buy from a supplier based on their faith, yet that is what the halal only outlets are doing.

Requirements to slaughter for halal meat
You must be a Muslim to slaughter animals for halal meat.

They refuse to buy from a non-Muslim source, not that they would anyway.

The LAW DOES SAY that the sourcing is illegal.
Just because something is illegal, doesn't meant prosecutions will take place. Especially for those from a "protected group"(it's an official term used in legal references).

Laws not applied
However, Animal Aid said it had discovered a "remarkable weakness in the application of the law", with the regulatory body, the Food Standards Agency, acknowledging to Animal Aid that any slaughterhouse "can practise non-stun slaughter without demonstrating that the meat is destined for religious communities.

What about others?

Clearer labelling would also help Britain's Sikhs, who cannot eat halal or kosher meat.

They can only eat meat that isn't halal and isn't kosher.

Well they’re just buying Halal from the only supplier of it....

---------- Post added at 09:09 ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 ----------

As for the slaughter houses then thy might be breaking the law in which case I don’t have a problem with them being investigated