Loudmouth:

Every business has a right to do those things but the question is what is their motive? The bakers stand to lose money because they only appeal to 30 per cent of the population whereas the ice cream sellers are appealing to 70 percent.

If you were in business what would you do?

What else does it look like except exploitation?

I see the bigots still wanting to deny the Australian people are vote.

AJ Philips,
So biological science is now dismissed as illogical, and emotional behaviour is what determines a person.

I am afraid I grew up in the science era and not in the flower power period, where confusion of gender reigned.

Of course I am not allowed to hold an opinion.

Dear phanto,

Of course the business company is probably
doing what's "good for their
business." But I'm not sure that the lobby groups for
same-sex marriage are being "exploited" as you put it.
I think they're doing what's good for them - in this
case - getting publicity and support for their cause -
all for free.

Joe,

What the cake makers did was NOT legal. That was one difference. Apart from that, it’s difficult to draw an accurate analogy between the two situations since there is no such thing as a gay or straight ice cream. Ben & Jerry’s aren’t discriminating against anyone for their sexuality, and there is no law against discriminating against people who insist on only eating one flavour of ice cream at a time.

--

Josephus,

Who is dismissing biological science, and how are they dismissing it?

<<So biological science is now dismissed as illogical, and emotional behaviour is what determines a person.>>

What is this "emotional behaviour" you speak of, and how is it defining people now? I'm concerned!

<<I am afraid I grew up in the science era and not in the flower power period, where confusion of gender reigned.>>

Gender confusion reigned in the ‘60s? Please, tell me more. And who are these people who are confused about their genders? I’m intrigued.

<<Of course I am not allowed to hold an opinion.>>

Aw, why not? That doesn't seem fair. We're all entitled to hold opinions.

Foxy:

Why would anyone support their business unless you were sure that they were in favour of same-sex marriage? How can you tell that their action is in order to support same-sex marriage and not just a ploy to get more business? You would want more evidence than the word of a business man. Business people exist to make money and not to further causes which should be judged on their reasonableness.

How can support for these business men be logically judged as support for same-sex marriage when we have no proof that such is the intention of the businessmen? You could be just gullibly lining their pockets.