Messages

Was he homosexual?

no

There may not be similarities here but,

a few years ago a man was asked to leave a well known restaurant as he has visible tattoos on his face. This is a policy by the restaurant however could it be seen as discriminating against how someone looks/who they are?

Did the equality commission bring this case forward?

[Plus he is a gay rights activist. I wonder if he wasn't an activist would he still have taken them up for discrimination?]

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.

How was he a regular? Plus he is a gay rights activist. I wonder if he wasn't an activist would he still have taken them up for discrimination?

Explain?

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.

How was he a regular? Plus he is a gay rights activist. I wonder if he wasn't an activist would he still have taken them up for discrimination?

Well if they follow trading standards then they will have to print them... But why would they turn away the money?? Most of the chippy vans at the 'Field' over the 12th are catholic owned as the prods are usually on the lash! No one complains too much and if they are looking a cod and Ulster fry they'll serve it

I never heard of anyone who was offended or against a cod or an ulster fry

Vegans?

If you're a vegan are you going to work in chippy? Your comparing a catholic serving food on the 12th to the ashers case are you not?

Well if they follow trading standards then they will have to print them... But why would they turn away the money?? Most of the chippy vans at the 'Field' over the 12th are catholic owned as the prods are usually on the lash! No one complains too much and if they are looking a cod and Ulster fry they'll serve it

I never heard of anyone who was offended or against a cod or an ulster fry

It doesn't feel right to me either. If somebody makes posters as their business, but is strongly against Fine Gael for example, does he have to accept their order to print Fine Gael election posters?

I appreciate the distinction and the discrimination aspect of it, but at the end of the day it is the right or not of someone to offer their professional services to a customer they don't feel  they can do business with.

Agreed. What worries me is that the judge found they discriminated against Mr. Lee personally on the grounds of his sexual orientation. If I, a straight man, had asked for the same cake to be baked and was refused, what grounds would they be guilty on?

+1

Quote
Unbelievable and typical of the no vote ... if you dont get what you want you dont support charities that help children exactly, you are one sad b**tard. the mind boggles....

Abuse, about what you can expect. Why do you imply that my parents were not married?

Quote
how can marriage be only about procreation when you can procreate without it and you can get married without procreation through choice or by not being medically able to have children or being at a stage in your life where having a child is not possible. what evidence to the contrary?

Not every married person has children, but it provides a desirable basis for a children to live with both its parents and any responsible society would not dilute it.

let focus on these two for a moment  - Abuse - you suggest that children's charities would suffer financially by doing their jobs and giving advise on what they feel is best for children. that is basically saying it is better for children to suffer then vote yes. If that is your opinion you are a sad b**tard. i am not sure where i implied your parents are not married?

agreed it does provide a desirable basis for children, where there is loving caring parents and this is the key, a homosexual couple can provide that love and care, as can a single parents.

You implied it by calling him a b**tard

Just finished watching the second half of the Donegal v Tyrone game and it was like watching WWF mixed with a bad rugby game.  People shouldn't have to pay 20 or 30 euro to watch that Shyte.  If the GAA won't change the rules and the managers won't change the tactics, then I am very afraid for the future of what was once a great game to play and to watch.
For the first time in my life I'm getting fed up of football, it's becoming unwatchable with players handpassing the ball all over the field and 15 men behind the ball.  It's very hard to watch and I'm sure I'm not the only one getting turned off.

How do we send a message to the GAA and the managers that we are fed up of this nonsense? We need to fix it before it's too late.  I think we (the fans) should send a clear message by boycotting one game completely.  The Armagh v donegal game would probably be a good One As I expect to see a replay of today.  The best way to send a message is to hit them financially.....


What do the think? And what game would ye pick to send a loud and clear message that we are sick of watching this rubbish?

I agree it's getting harder to watch. Just because it was hard hitting doesn't make it a good game. It's not just the game yesterday but in most county and club games.

It's getting more and more like rugby or even to an extent basketball. If you paused the game yesterday at times I would guarantee that you see one team on their own side and the team in possession moving the ball across the pitch to try to find a space to run into. Is that enjoyable to watch? Is it enjoyable to watch 5-6 Donegal players pass the ball to each other in their own half because there is no one marking them?

[these arguments made in relation to a straight couple who have difficulties having their own children]

Pre-referendum: Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children but not get married.

Post-referendum (assuming a yes vote): Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children and get married.

Can someone please explain how a yes vote undermines or attacks marriage or families?

You've said it yourself. Straight people ger married and have children with that oerson, providing responsible parenting. Gay people have children, you don't say how, but I'll hazard a guess that they don't marry the parent of their children, but rather exclude one of the parents.

"Exclude" one of the parents?

Gay couples have children by various means. Adoption, anonymous sperm donation, IVF, surrogacy etc., all various methods that are also used by straight couples. Are they also "excluding" one of the parents, whatever that means? If that's your beef, then why not call for a ban those methods of having children? Or is it only a problem when gay parents wish to avail of the same methods? If so, why is it okay for straight people to use those methods of having children but not gay parents? What's the difference?

In any case, none of this has any bearing on the referendum, as you know.

+1 on both points. I've never heard these arguments made in relation to a straight couple who have difficulties having their own children. But as you said, it's irrelevant to the referendum.

No one would argue that because a straight couple might not know that they can't have children before they are married. 

[I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.]

I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.

I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.

Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.

I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.

But that has nothing to do with them getting married. That's about them raising children.

And as has already been said, this is about civil marriage, not a religious marriage.

So if it passes can two catholic men or women get married in a church?

No. I can't believe anyone is asking that question this close to the referendum.

Fair enough but I did state in a previous post that I don't have a vote. I haven.t been following this thread since day one...just more recent as it gets closer.

[I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.]

I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.

I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.

Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.

I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.

But that has nothing to do with them getting married. That's about them raising children.

And as has already been said, this is about civil marriage, not a religious marriage.

So if it passes can two catholic men or women get married in a church?

Anybody here tried any good diets or recommend any? Not the seafood one but.

I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.

I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.

Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.

I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.

[said countless times, this is NOT about children]

It may be no harm to remind people what we are voting on next week :

ARTICLE 41
3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex".


The purpose of this amendment is to redefine the accepted meaning of "the institution of marriage" as referenced in Article 41.

The purpose of this amendment is to destroy Article 41. What is left to protect after a YES vote? Marriage and Family are intrinsically linked in the Article, a point which the YES campaign fail to acknowledge. Families are broken and lives are destroyed everyday but that doesn't mean we vote to create more broken families. That is what should be defended. Article 41 is not fulfilliing it's purpose. The family and marriage are under attack....the state is rolling over

A married couple is a family, regardless of whether they have children. This will allow a same sex couple to be regarded as a family, regardless of whether they have children.

As has been said countless times, this is NOT about children, but that makes it very inconvenient for the No camp. This does not create any broken families. You might consider that adoption or surrogacy would, but that's separate from the issue of marriage.

Just because you said it countless times, doesn't make it fact. I don't have a vote so it doesn't affect me, but you are either ignoring a big reason as to why some people will vote no or it's going over your head.