Ashers cake controversy.

[Franko]

An incredibly sensible and well reasoned decision I have to say. The anti-discrimination legislation was enacted to prevent discrimination on a limited number of grounds and stop people being treated less favourably than others. To allow a defence of we would have refused to bake the same cake for a heterosexual couple would have made a mockery of that legislation. I don't need to rehash the judgement but it is clear that in so doing you would have been adversely effecting those of one particular sexual orientation or political belief. That is to say those who support Gay Marriage would be treated less favourably than those who don't.

The idea the judgement is anti-religion is a nonsense too. It's clear from it that had a request been made to a secular bakery for a pro-Christian messaged cake, the pro Christian message could not have been refused. The rights of all are protected. Also religious organisations are exempted from most of the legislation.

There are a few issues that are grating on me though. Firstly the evidence makes very clear that Mr Lee was a regular at this bakery and had no previous issues with Ashers and was shocked when his order was cancelled. He then rushed to get another bakery to fulfil his order. Mr Lee was therefore not trying to set Ashers up for a fall or use the bakery as a scape goat.

Secondly it is wrong to say Ashers are a Christian bakery. They are a bakery. The directors are Christian. The bakery is a Ltd Company with no religious views. It is a distinct legal entity from its owners.

I still don't get how she could find them guilty of discrimination on basis of sexual orientation. If I, straight and supportive of gay marriage, asked for the cake and was refused, how can they have discriminated against me on the basis of my sexual orientation?

This has been asked twice now and still none of those who support the ruling can provide an answer.

[imtommygunn]

There is some subtlety in the wording and they weren't purely found guilty on the basis of discrimination against sexual orientation. I saw this on twitter somewhere - will try and dig it out.

I'm not sure I'm totally for the verdict either but it is amusing to see the reaction of the knuckle draggers like Fearon, DUPers, free Ps etc.

[LeoMc]

An incredibly sensible and well reasoned decision I have to say. The anti-discrimination legislation was enacted to prevent discrimination on a limited number of grounds and stop people being treated less favourably than others. To allow a defence of we would have refused to bake the same cake for a heterosexual couple would have made a mockery of that legislation. I don't need to rehash the judgement but it is clear that in so doing you would have been adversely effecting those of one particular sexual orientation or political belief. That is to say those who support Gay Marriage would be treated less favourably than those who don't.

The idea the judgement is anti-religion is a nonsense too. It's clear from it that had a request been made to a secular bakery for a pro-Christian messaged cake, the pro Christian message could not have been refused. The rights of all are protected. Also religious organisations are exempted from most of the legislation.

There are a few issues that are grating on me though. Firstly the evidence makes very clear that Mr Lee was a regular at this bakery and had no previous issues with Ashers and was shocked when his order was cancelled. He then rushed to get another bakery to fulfil his order. Mr Lee was therefore not trying to set Ashers up for a fall or use the bakery as a scape goat.

Secondly it is wrong to say Ashers are a Christian bakery. They are a bakery. The directors are Christian. The bakery is a Ltd Company with no religious views. It is a distinct legal entity from its owners.

I still don't get how she could find them guilty of discrimination on basis of sexual orientation. If I, straight and supportive of gay marriage, asked for the cake and was refused, how can they have discriminated against me on the basis of my sexual orientation?

This has been asked twice now and still none of those who support the ruling can provide an answer.

The answer is in the original quote.

[gallsman]

There is some subtlety in the wording and they weren't purely found guilty on the basis of discrimination against sexual orientation. I saw this on twitter somewhere - will try and dig it out.

I'm not sure I'm totally for the verdict either but it is amusing to see the reaction of the knuckle draggers like Fearon, DUPers, free Ps etc.

I agree.. to an extent. I can't see how (I'm not a legal professional) the ruling is correct but if it is, I think the law needs looked at. Unfortunately, the DUP will be the ones looking to do it with their conscience clause or otherwise.

However, there is definitely enjoyment in seeing people like Jim Allister, a barrister, fly off the handle and rant and rave about religious freedom without even pretending to analyse it from a legal perspective.

[gallsman]

An incredibly sensible and well reasoned decision I have to say. The anti-discrimination legislation was enacted to prevent discrimination on a limited number of grounds and stop people being treated less favourably than others. To allow a defence of we would have refused to bake the same cake for a heterosexual couple would have made a mockery of that legislation. I don't need to rehash the judgement but it is clear that in so doing you would have been adversely effecting those of one particular sexual orientation or political belief. That is to say those who support Gay Marriage would be treated less favourably than those who don't.

The idea the judgement is anti-religion is a nonsense too. It's clear from it that had a request been made to a secular bakery for a pro-Christian messaged cake, the pro Christian message could not have been refused. The rights of all are protected. Also religious organisations are exempted from most of the legislation.

There are a few issues that are grating on me though. Firstly the evidence makes very clear that Mr Lee was a regular at this bakery and had no previous issues with Ashers and was shocked when his order was cancelled. He then rushed to get another bakery to fulfil his order. Mr Lee was therefore not trying to set Ashers up for a fall or use the bakery as a scape goat.

Secondly it is wrong to say Ashers are a Christian bakery. They are a bakery. The directors are Christian. The bakery is a Ltd Company with no religious views. It is a distinct legal entity from its owners.

I still don't get how she could find them guilty of discrimination on basis of sexual orientation. If I, straight and supportive of gay marriage, asked for the cake and was refused, how can they have discriminated against me on the basis of my sexual orientation?

This has been asked twice now and still none of those who support the ruling can provide an answer.

The answer is in the original quote.

But I do support gay marriage...

[MoChara]

So my understanding now is the ruling was based on discrimination towards people of a political or social view rather than discrimination towards people of a sexual orientation.

I'm still unsure of my feelings about this ruling should people be forced to do things against their will, regardless of our opinion on the reasons. Then again giving the right to refuse can go too extreme as well. One thing I am sure of though  is Ashers are a crowd of bellends.

[Pub Bore]

It's my understanding that Ashers were found to have discriminated against Mr Lee on the basis of his sexual orientation and his political opinion.  The judge ruled that support for gay marriage is a political issue.  So if a heterosexual person ordered the cake and was refused it would be discrimination on the basis of their political opinion. 

The judged ruled that Mr Lee's request for a cake supporting gay marriage and carrying QueerSpace's logo and the fact that the McArthur family spent a weekend discussing the issue (their testimony) and that Mrs McArthur acknowledged that there may be legal implications of they did not supply the cake (again their testimony) taken in the round showed that they must have at least considered the fact the Mr Lee might be gay and/or, as the judgement states, "may have associated with gay people".

Also one thing I didn't realise, Ashers don't actually make the cakes, they provide an icing service.

[screenexile]

So my understanding now is the ruling was based on discrimination towards people of a political or social view rather than discrimination towards people of a sexual orientation.

I'm still unsure of my feelings about this ruling should people be forced to do things against their will, regardless of our opinion on the reasons. Then again giving the right to refuse can go too extreme as well. One thing I am sure of though  is Ashers are a crowd of bellends.

I think the point made yesterday was that an individual does not have to do something against their will but a business cannot discriminate. If they did not want to ice the cake they should have got someone who was comfortable to do it and if they didn't want their name associated with it give the customer a blank box without the Ashers name on it!

[gallsman]

It's my understanding that Ashers were found to have discriminated against Mr Lee on the basis of his sexual orientation and his political opinion.  The judge ruled that support for gay marriage is a political issue.  So if a heterosexual person ordered the cake and was refused it would be discrimination on the basis of their political opinion. 

The judged ruled that Mr Lee's request for a cake supporting gay marriage and carrying QueerSpace's logo and the fact that the McArthur family spent a weekend discussing the issue (their testimony) and that Mrs McArthur acknowledged that there may be legal implications of they did not supply the cake (again their testimony) taken in the round showed that they must have at least considered the fact the Mr Lee might be gay and/or, as the judgement states, "may have associated with gay people".

Also one thing I didn't realise, Ashers don't actually make the cakes, they provide an icing service.

Again, I understand the political opinion piece (although as I understand it this is much more murky territory and is not specifically protected under equality legislation?) and can see how, in my theoretical case, they might have accordingly discriminated against me. However, all those events that followed would still be true in my instance - I associate with gay people, I support gay marriage rights etc. I still fail to see how they could be guilty of discriminating against me on the basis of sexual orientation if I'm not gay.

One thing I am sure of though  is Ashers are a crowd of bellends.

What leads you to say this? Like a lot of self-professed "Christians" in the North, I find their preachy rhetoric a bit tiresome and I disagree with their views, but I think they've been reasonably dignified throughout, no?

[screenexile]

It's my understanding that Ashers were found to have discriminated against Mr Lee on the basis of his sexual orientation and his political opinion.  The judge ruled that support for gay marriage is a political issue.  So if a heterosexual person ordered the cake and was refused it would be discrimination on the basis of their political opinion. 

The judged ruled that Mr Lee's request for a cake supporting gay marriage and carrying QueerSpace's logo and the fact that the McArthur family spent a weekend discussing the issue (their testimony) and that Mrs McArthur acknowledged that there may be legal implications of they did not supply the cake (again their testimony) taken in the round showed that they must have at least considered the fact the Mr Lee might be gay and/or, as the judgement states, "may have associated with gay people".

Also one thing I didn't realise, Ashers don't actually make the cakes, they provide an icing service.

Again, I understand the political opinion piece (although as I understand it this is much more murky territory and is not specifically protected under equality legislation?) and can see how, in my theoretical case, they might have accordingly discriminated against me. However, all those events that followed would still be true in my instance - I associate with gay people, I support gay marriage rights etc. I still fail to see how they could be guilty of discriminating against me on the basis of sexual orientation if I'm not gay.

One thing I am sure of though  is Ashers are a crowd of bellends.

What leads you to say this? Like a lot of self-professed "Christians" in the North, I find their preachy rhetoric a bit tiresome and I disagree with their views, but I think they've been reasonably dignified throughout, no?

I thought the 'Campaign' style video of the McArthur's in their house playing with their kids very American and OTT!!

[gallsman]

It was but I don't think that makes them bellends.

[Pub Bore]

Mrs Asher's a babe.

Ashers is the name of the company, the directors name is McArthur.  Having said that I agree with the message in your post!

[MoChara]

One thing I am sure of though  is Ashers are a crowd of bellends.

What leads you to say this? Like a lot of self-professed "Christians" in the North, I find their preachy rhetoric a bit tiresome and I disagree with their views, but I think they've been reasonably dignified throughout, no?

I find it hard to call anyone that is being discriminatory towards a sect of people due to something that's none of their business as dignified. Hence Bellends.

[gallsman]

One thing I am sure of though  is Ashers are a crowd of bellends.

What leads you to say this? Like a lot of self-professed "Christians" in the North, I find their preachy rhetoric a bit tiresome and I disagree with their views, but I think they've been reasonably dignified throughout, no?

I find it hard to call anyone that is being discriminatory towards a sect of people due to something that's none of their business as dignified. Hence Bellends.

But you've already said you're unsure of how you feel about the ruling, but it's now the reason they're bellend? Bizarre. Would they still be bellends if they'd been found not to have discriminated?

[MoChara]

My feelings on the ruling aren't to do with the McArthurs its to do with the wider implications of it. I don't have to agree with someone to feel they should have a right to do it.

Indeed the fact they are bellends has nothing to do with the verdict.