Gay activist goes out of his way to be offended.

[haranguerer]

When you are serving the public, you should not be allowed to discriminate on the usual grounds. Thats where I'd draw the line. Where would you have it?

From my reading of it, they did both a) [in the correct way, might I add, by contacting the equality commission rather than the papers] and b).

[Rossfan]

When you are serving the public, you should not be allowed to discriminate on the usual grounds.

So what grounds should you be allowed to discriminate on then?

[armaghniac]

Would a gay bakery make a "Save Ulster from Sodomy" cake?

A cake for a homophobic campaign? Assuming there was such a thing as 'a gay bakery', they probably wouldnt. Do you still think thats a good anlaogy? Hopefully not.

It is a different political opinion and so a fair analogy.

Homophobia is a political opinion in the same way racism is a political opinion. THAT is a fair analogy. Yours isn't.

As always with these debates there is an immediate use of "homophobia" implying a motivation for those opposed to legal change in marriage, which pretty much discredits the whole argument and proves my point that those making the case here would not do any different if asked to bake a cake stating the opposite view.

There is a difference between refusing to do business with people and refusing to prepare propaganda in support of a political cause you do not believe in. Would the Newsletter print SF election literature?

[EC Unique]

Was it a fudge cake?

No. Apparently a Fruit cake.

[imtommygunn]

When you are serving the public, you should not be allowed to discriminate on the usual grounds. Thats where I'd draw the line. Where would you have it?

From my reading of it, they did both a) [in the correct way, might I add, by contacting the equality commission rather than the papers] and b).

Is usual grounds legal speak or your speak? (That's a genuine question as I don't know if this is your lingo or legal lingo.)

[haranguerer]

When you are serving the public, you should not be allowed to discriminate on the usual grounds.

So what grounds should you be allowed to discriminate on then?

Grounds that you've a good reason for. No motorcycle helmets for example...

[haranguerer]

When you are serving the public, you should not be allowed to discriminate on the usual grounds. Thats where I'd draw the line. Where would you have it?

From my reading of it, they did both a) [in the correct way, might I add, by contacting the equality commission rather than the papers] and b).

Is usual grounds legal speak or your speak? (That's a genuine question as I don't know if this is your lingo or legal lingo.)

I'd started to type race, creed, sexuality etc, but I just wrote the usual grounds because I'm lazy...

[Zulu]

This is what general manager Daniel McArthur said - "It certainly was at odds with what the Bible teaches, and on the following Monday we rang the customer to let him know that we couldn't take his order."

Good to know they are on solid, logical grounds by basing their views on a book made up by lads over 2000 years ago. Anyway, isn't it just the old testament where homosexuality is referred to and Jesus, if he did exist, never mentioned it at all?

[haranguerer]

Would a gay bakery make a "Save Ulster from Sodomy" cake?

A cake for a homophobic campaign? Assuming there was such a thing as 'a gay bakery', they probably wouldnt. Do you still think thats a good anlaogy? Hopefully not.

It is a different political opinion and so a fair analogy.

Homophobia is a political opinion in the same way racism is a political opinion. THAT is a fair analogy. Yours isn't.

As always with these debates there is an immediate use of "homophobia" implying a motivation for those opposed to legal change in marriage, which pretty much discredits the whole argument and proves my point that those making the case here would not do any different if asked to bake a cake stating the opposite view.

There is a difference between refusing to do business with people and refusing to prepare propaganda in support of a political cause you do not believe in. Would the Newsletter print SF election literature?

I agree that often labels are unfairly attached and used to shout down those with opposite views, but I dont think it is unfair in this case.

Im not sure the Newsletter prints itself, but to take your point, all inequality has to be seen through the eyes of those who feel they were discriminated against. Black people can call each other n***a and it isnt a problem, its not the word as much as the intent, and the hurt caused. Would SF be as hurt by the Newsletter not printing literature? Would it cause them as much damage? Would they report it? If they did, and the Equality commission considered it to be discriminatory, then if the News Letter decided to fight the ruling, then we'd have the same scenario.

Its worth pointing out that (in my reading of it), the Equality commission havent initiated legal action. They wrote out asking how they planned on recitfying the situation - an apology for hurt caused, an explanation of their views may have sufficed (and may yet). The story isnt that they refused to serve, this happened ages ago, nor is it even the Equality Commissions letter. Its them choosing to contest it - it seems to me its more likely they who went to the media.

[imtommygunn]

When you are serving the public, you should not be allowed to discriminate on the usual grounds. Thats where I'd draw the line. Where would you have it?

From my reading of it, they did both a) [in the correct way, might I add, by contacting the equality commission rather than the papers] and b).

Is usual grounds legal speak or your speak? (That's a genuine question as I don't know if this is your lingo or legal lingo.)

I'd started to type race, creed, sexuality etc, but I just wrote the usual grounds because I'm lazy...

Ah right...

Well I don't know where they would stand legally but I would be surprised if there were laws to dictate things like this.

Make your point fine and I don't disagree with them but going to court etc is a bit much.

I , mostly, agree with you but the world at times has gone a bit PC mad and I think this is a case of it.

[thebigfella]

Hold up here..... Wtf is a Christian bakery anyway and how does that differ from a normal bakery?

[5 Sams]

Hold up here..... Wtf is a Christian bakery anyway and how does that differ from a normal bakery?

It only bakes a locka loaves but can feed 5,000 people with them

Away for my coat.

[Orior]

Hold up here..... Wtf is a Christian bakery anyway and how does that differ from a normal bakery?

It only bakes a locka loaves but can feed 5,000 people with them

Away for my coat.

Speciality is unleavened bread

[macdanger2]

Personally while I have nothing against gay marriage I do think that this is perhaps taking things a little too far.

As has been said before you could apply similar logic to a variety of places...

Could you for example go into a flag shop (as it's a PC hot potato) on sandy rowe or the shankill and either buy a tricolour or order one? I very much doubt it.

If you apply a similar logic to Rosa Parks, you see where you end up??

Everyone is entitled to their personal views but if you supply a service to the public, you have to supply to all in society equally

[imtommygunn]

Personally while I have nothing against gay marriage I do think that this is perhaps taking things a little too far.

As has been said before you could apply similar logic to a variety of places...

Could you for example go into a flag shop (as it's a PC hot potato) on sandy rowe or the shankill and either buy a tricolour or order one? I very much doubt it.

If you apply a similar logic to Rosa Parks, you see where you end up??

Everyone is entitled to their personal views but if you supply a service to the public, you have to supply to all in society equally

Says who? Is there a law on this?.

I genuinely am not sure if there is...

If it goes to court then I guess it will be interesting to see what the court says.