Ashers cake controversy.

Started by T Fearon, November 07, 2014, 06:36:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

LCohen

Quote from: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 10:39:59 AM
Bringing this through the courts is going too far.
Why didn't they just go to a gay friendly bakery ?

Because they shouldn't have to

LCohen

Quote from: BennyCake on November 07, 2014, 09:42:25 PM
That business should be entitled to refuse the bumbashers request.

Congratulations on your successful time travel. Be sure to join us again sometime, Its a cheery reminder of how far we have come

Main Street

#32
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:48:34 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2014, 06:36:39 PM
Anyone else think this is totally moronic,dragging this Belfast bakery company through the courts for "discrimination " on account of its refusal to ice a logo of support on a cake in support of gay marriage?

No its not moronic. They may not win the case but part of the Commission's brief is to take these cases to help define the law. The precise line of the law will not be defined in statute and there needs a common law decision

It would howver be moronic to conclude that if they bring the case and lose that they are automatically morons.
I would agree with Tony that the equality commission choice of trumpeting this case as a part of defining the equality law, has the hallmarks of moronic behaviour.
They must be hard up for cases to triumph, to further the goal of social equality. I would seriously question their ideological mission or question their interpretation of what the equality mission is.
I haven't read all the public utterances made by the bakery to explain their actions, (the less said the better) but what I have read is that their concern was just with the political slogan which they did not support and that was the basis of their refusal of service.
The equality commission are making a challenge based on religious, sexual and political discrimination. Imo. the first two are not an issue here but the 3rd is,  the political discrimination.
If the statelet has withstood challenges to its right to discriminate against gay marriage, then certainly an individual also has rights of some discrimination within the law. It's within the law to choose to not be a part of supporting a particular political campaign, the bakery's denial of service is just concerned with a political campaign.

Would the equality commission, hold the opinion that one must participate in a political campaign if your services are purchased?
If rednecks flags alliance had a political campaign and ordered a cake with a  UJ image and the slogan 'put it back on city hall', could a bakery be taken to task on the grounds of political discrimination, should it refuse their service to do the cake?

seafoid

Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:58:34 AM
Quote from: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 10:39:59 AM
Bringing this through the courts is going too far.
Why didn't they just go to a gay friendly bakery ?

Because they shouldn't have to
If I wanted a GAA cake I wouldn't go a bakery run by cricket fans.
If I meet soccer fans I don't start talking about Tyrone and Mickey Harte.
Surely a bit of common sense is in order.

Not everyone is delighted with gay marriage.
And NI is hardly the most progressive 6 counties in the world.

"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

LCohen

Quote from: Main Street on November 08, 2014, 12:04:11 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:48:34 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2014, 06:36:39 PM
Anyone else think this is totally moronic,dragging this Belfast bakery company through the courts for "discrimination " on account of its refusal to ice a logo of support on a cake in support of gay marriage?

No its not moronic. They may not win the case but part of the Commission's brief is to take these cases to help define the law. The precise line of the law will not be defined in statute and there needs a common law decision

It would howver be moronic to conclude that if they bring the case and lose that they are automatically morons.
I would agree with Tony that the equality commission choice of trumpeting this case as a part of defining the equality law, has the hallmarks of moronic behaviour.
They must be hard up for cases to triumph, to further the goal of social equality. I would seriously question their ideological mission or question their interpretation of what the equality mission is.
I haven't read all the public utterances made by the bakery to explain their actions, (the less said the better) but what I have read is that their concern was just with the political slogan which they did not support and that was the basis of their refusal of service.
The equality commission are making a challenge based on religious, sexual and political discrimination. Imo. the first two are not an issue here but the 3rd is,  the political discrimination.
If the statelet has withstood challenges to its right to discriminate against gay marriage, then certainly an individual also has rights of some discrimination within the law. It's within the law to choose to not be a part of supporting a particular political campaign, the bakery's denial of service is just concerned with a political campaign.

Would the equality commission, hold the opinion that one must participate in a political campaign if your services are purchased?
If rednecks flags alliance had a political campaign and ordered a cake with a  UJ image and the slogan 'put it back on city hall', could a bakery be taken to task on the grounds of political discrimination, should it refuse their service to do the cake?

What is and is not within the law will be determined by this case. I, for one am not pre-judging the outcome of this case (or the appeal or the appeal of the appeal, etc, etc)

A pub for example might have a policy of not permitting patrons access with football jerseys on. Those same jerseys are perfectly legal elsewhere. But if the pub tried to instigate a policy were access was not granted to the wearers of a particular jersey then they are likely to find themselves on the end of a discrimination case. (I accept that there are plenty of pubs that you want not want to enter wearing a particular jersey).

As for flags on cakes - if a bakery had a blanket ban on flags on cakes it would not be any legal difficulty. If it states that it will happily do one flag but not another then we are into discrimination territory.

If Ashers Bakery are refusing to provide cakes in support of marriage then they might find themselves in some commercial difficulty. But seemingly they are fine with marriage. Just not marriage for everyone who wants it. This again brings us into discrimination territory and the need for some legal clarity. And what could be wrong with that?

LCohen

Quote from: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 12:28:39 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:58:34 AM
Quote from: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 10:39:59 AM
Bringing this through the courts is going too far.
Why didn't they just go to a gay friendly bakery ?

Because they shouldn't have to
If I wanted a GAA cake I wouldn't go a bakery run by cricket fans.
If I meet soccer fans I don't start talking about Tyrone and Mickey Harte.
Surely a bit of common sense is in order.

Not everyone is delighted with gay marriage.
And NI is hardly the most progressive 6 counties in the world.

Would a cricket loving baker refuse to decorate a "gaa cake" whatever that might be?

Surely 2 gay men wanting a cake celebrating their mutual love and their desire to get married could reasonably be able to get this service in a bakers that decorates cakes? Not a subset of cake decorators but all cake decorators?

seafoid

Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 03:00:06 PM
Quote from: Main Street on November 08, 2014, 12:04:11 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:48:34 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2014, 06:36:39 PM
Anyone else think this is totally moronic,dragging this Belfast bakery company through the courts for "discrimination " on account of its refusal to ice a logo of support on a cake in support of gay marriage?

No its not moronic. They may not win the case but part of the Commission's brief is to take these cases to help define the law. The precise line of the law will not be defined in statute and there needs a common law decision

It would howver be moronic to conclude that if they bring the case and lose that they are automatically morons.
I would agree with Tony that the equality commission choice of trumpeting this case as a part of defining the equality law, has the hallmarks of moronic behaviour.
They must be hard up for cases to triumph, to further the goal of social equality. I would seriously question their ideological mission or question their interpretation of what the equality mission is.
I haven't read all the public utterances made by the bakery to explain their actions, (the less said the better) but what I have read is that their concern was just with the political slogan which they did not support and that was the basis of their refusal of service.
The equality commission are making a challenge based on religious, sexual and political discrimination. Imo. the first two are not an issue here but the 3rd is,  the political discrimination.
If the statelet has withstood challenges to its right to discriminate against gay marriage, then certainly an individual also has rights of some discrimination within the law. It's within the law to choose to not be a part of supporting a particular political campaign, the bakery's denial of service is just concerned with a political campaign.

Would the equality commission, hold the opinion that one must participate in a political campaign if your services are purchased?
If rednecks flags alliance had a political campaign and ordered a cake with a  UJ image and the slogan 'put it back on city hall', could a bakery be taken to task on the grounds of political discrimination, should it refuse their service to do the cake?

What is and is not within the law will be determined by this case. I, for one am not pre-judging the outcome of this case (or the appeal or the appeal of the appeal, etc, etc)

A pub for example might have a policy of not permitting patrons access with football jerseys on. Those same jerseys are perfectly legal elsewhere. But if the pub tried to instigate a policy were access was not granted to the wearers of a particular jersey then they are likely to find themselves on the end of a discrimination case. (I accept that there are plenty of pubs that you want not want to enter wearing a particular jersey).

As for flags on cakes - if a bakery had a blanket ban on flags on cakes it would not be any legal difficulty. If it states that it will happily do one flag but not another then we are into discrimination territory.

If Ashers Bakery are refusing to provide cakes in support of marriage then they might find themselves in some commercial difficulty. But seemingly they are fine with marriage. Just not marriage for everyone who wants it. This again brings us into discrimination territory and the need for some legal clarity. And what could be wrong with that?
I saw a pub in NI that had a sign outside saying
no football tops
no visible tattoos
no baseball caps
no hooded tops

Should they be brought before the courts too ? 
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

LCohen

Quote from: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 03:09:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 03:00:06 PM
Quote from: Main Street on November 08, 2014, 12:04:11 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:48:34 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2014, 06:36:39 PM
Anyone else think this is totally moronic,dragging this Belfast bakery company through the courts for "discrimination " on account of its refusal to ice a logo of support on a cake in support of gay marriage?

No its not moronic. They may not win the case but part of the Commission's brief is to take these cases to help define the law. The precise line of the law will not be defined in statute and there needs a common law decision

It would howver be moronic to conclude that if they bring the case and lose that they are automatically morons.
I would agree with Tony that the equality commission choice of trumpeting this case as a part of defining the equality law, has the hallmarks of moronic behaviour.
They must be hard up for cases to triumph, to further the goal of social equality. I would seriously question their ideological mission or question their interpretation of what the equality mission is.
I haven't read all the public utterances made by the bakery to explain their actions, (the less said the better) but what I have read is that their concern was just with the political slogan which they did not support and that was the basis of their refusal of service.
The equality commission are making a challenge based on religious, sexual and political discrimination. Imo. the first two are not an issue here but the 3rd is,  the political discrimination.
If the statelet has withstood challenges to its right to discriminate against gay marriage, then certainly an individual also has rights of some discrimination within the law. It's within the law to choose to not be a part of supporting a particular political campaign, the bakery's denial of service is just concerned with a political campaign.

Would the equality commission, hold the opinion that one must participate in a political campaign if your services are purchased?
If rednecks flags alliance had a political campaign and ordered a cake with a  UJ image and the slogan 'put it back on city hall', could a bakery be taken to task on the grounds of political discrimination, should it refuse their service to do the cake?

What is and is not within the law will be determined by this case. I, for one am not pre-judging the outcome of this case (or the appeal or the appeal of the appeal, etc, etc)

A pub for example might have a policy of not permitting patrons access with football jerseys on. Those same jerseys are perfectly legal elsewhere. But if the pub tried to instigate a policy were access was not granted to the wearers of a particular jersey then they are likely to find themselves on the end of a discrimination case. (I accept that there are plenty of pubs that you want not want to enter wearing a particular jersey).

As for flags on cakes - if a bakery had a blanket ban on flags on cakes it would not be any legal difficulty. If it states that it will happily do one flag but not another then we are into discrimination territory.

If Ashers Bakery are refusing to provide cakes in support of marriage then they might find themselves in some commercial difficulty. But seemingly they are fine with marriage. Just not marriage for everyone who wants it. This again brings us into discrimination territory and the need for some legal clarity. And what could be wrong with that?
I saw a pub in NI that had a sign outside saying
no football tops
no visible tattoos
no baseball caps
no hooded tops

Should they be brought before the courts too ?

No - but I guess you knew that

Mike Sheehy

Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 03:12:09 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 03:09:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 03:00:06 PM
Quote from: Main Street on November 08, 2014, 12:04:11 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:48:34 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2014, 06:36:39 PM
Anyone else think this is totally moronic,dragging this Belfast bakery company through the courts for "discrimination " on account of its refusal to ice a logo of support on a cake in support of gay marriage?

No its not moronic. They may not win the case but part of the Commission's brief is to take these cases to help define the law. The precise line of the law will not be defined in statute and there needs a common law decision

It would howver be moronic to conclude that if they bring the case and lose that they are automatically morons.
I would agree with Tony that the equality commission choice of trumpeting this case as a part of defining the equality law, has the hallmarks of moronic behaviour.
They must be hard up for cases to triumph, to further the goal of social equality. I would seriously question their ideological mission or question their interpretation of what the equality mission is.
I haven't read all the public utterances made by the bakery to explain their actions, (the less said the better) but what I have read is that their concern was just with the political slogan which they did not support and that was the basis of their refusal of service.
The equality commission are making a challenge based on religious, sexual and political discrimination. Imo. the first two are not an issue here but the 3rd is,  the political discrimination.
If the statelet has withstood challenges to its right to discriminate against gay marriage, then certainly an individual also has rights of some discrimination within the law. It's within the law to choose to not be a part of supporting a particular political campaign, the bakery's denial of service is just concerned with a political campaign.

Would the equality commission, hold the opinion that one must participate in a political campaign if your services are purchased?
If rednecks flags alliance had a political campaign and ordered a cake with a  UJ image and the slogan 'put it back on city hall', could a bakery be taken to task on the grounds of political discrimination, should it refuse their service to do the cake?

What is and is not within the law will be determined by this case. I, for one am not pre-judging the outcome of this case (or the appeal or the appeal of the appeal, etc, etc)

A pub for example might have a policy of not permitting patrons access with football jerseys on. Those same jerseys are perfectly legal elsewhere. But if the pub tried to instigate a policy were access was not granted to the wearers of a particular jersey then they are likely to find themselves on the end of a discrimination case. (I accept that there are plenty of pubs that you want not want to enter wearing a particular jersey).

As for flags on cakes - if a bakery had a blanket ban on flags on cakes it would not be any legal difficulty. If it states that it will happily do one flag but not another then we are into discrimination territory.

If Ashers Bakery are refusing to provide cakes in support of marriage then they might find themselves in some commercial difficulty. But seemingly they are fine with marriage. Just not marriage for everyone who wants it. This again brings us into discrimination territory and the need for some legal clarity. And what could be wrong with that?
I saw a pub in NI that had a sign outside saying
no football tops
no visible tattoos
no baseball caps
no hooded tops

Should they be brought before the courts too ?

No - but I guess you knew that

Of course he knows this. You should know by now that divisiveness is part of his MO

Essentially he is advocating for a "common sense" form of apartheid where people only go to <insert-minority-here> "friendly" places.

Dangerous chap, this Seafoid.


omaghjoe

Quote from: Mike Sheehy on November 08, 2014, 03:26:39 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 03:12:09 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 03:09:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 03:00:06 PM
Quote from: Main Street on November 08, 2014, 12:04:11 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:48:34 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2014, 06:36:39 PM
Anyone else think this is totally moronic,dragging this Belfast bakery company through the courts for "discrimination " on account of its refusal to ice a logo of support on a cake in support of gay marriage?

You two need get a life every thread seems to descend into some sort of bitch fight between you two.
Send each other your opinions via IM because everyone else is sick of reading through your idiotic drivels to read what anyone else has to say.

No its not moronic. They may not win the case but part of the Commission's brief is to take these cases to help define the law. The precise line of the law will not be defined in statute and there needs a common law decision

It would howver be moronic to conclude that if they bring the case and lose that they are automatically morons.
I would agree with Tony that the equality commission choice of trumpeting this case as a part of defining the equality law, has the hallmarks of moronic behaviour.
They must be hard up for cases to triumph, to further the goal of social equality. I would seriously question their ideological mission or question their interpretation of what the equality mission is.
I haven't read all the public utterances made by the bakery to explain their actions, (the less said the better) but what I have read is that their concern was just with the political slogan which they did not support and that was the basis of their refusal of service.
The equality commission are making a challenge based on religious, sexual and political discrimination. Imo. the first two are not an issue here but the 3rd is,  the political discrimination.
If the statelet has withstood challenges to its right to discriminate against gay marriage, then certainly an individual also has rights of some discrimination within the law. It's within the law to choose to not be a part of supporting a particular political campaign, the bakery's denial of service is just concerned with a political campaign.

Would the equality commission, hold the opinion that one must participate in a political campaign if your services are purchased?
If rednecks flags alliance had a political campaign and ordered a cake with a  UJ image and the slogan 'put it back on city hall', could a bakery be taken to task on the grounds of political discrimination, should it refuse their service to do the cake?

What is and is not within the law will be determined by this case. I, for one am not pre-judging the outcome of this case (or the appeal or the appeal of the appeal, etc, etc)

A pub for example might have a policy of not permitting patrons access with football jerseys on. Those same jerseys are perfectly legal elsewhere. But if the pub tried to instigate a policy were access was not granted to the wearers of a particular jersey then they are likely to find themselves on the end of a discrimination case. (I accept that there are plenty of pubs that you want not want to enter wearing a particular jersey).

As for flags on cakes - if a bakery had a blanket ban on flags on cakes it would not be any legal difficulty. If it states that it will happily do one flag but not another then we are into discrimination territory.

If Ashers Bakery are refusing to provide cakes in support of marriage then they might find themselves in some commercial difficulty. But seemingly they are fine with marriage. Just not marriage for everyone who wants it. This again brings us into discrimination territory and the need for some legal clarity. And what could be wrong with that?
I saw a pub in NI that had a sign outside saying
no football tops
no visible tattoos
no baseball caps
no hooded tops

Should they be brought before the courts too ?

No - but I guess you knew that

Of course he knows this. You should know by now that divisiveness is part of his MO

Essentially he is advocating for a "common sense" form of apartheid where people only go to <insert-minority-here> "friendly" places.

Dangerous chap, this Seafoid.

thejuice

I don't give much of a damn about gay marriage if it is passes or not but I don't think it should be a criminal offence to not support it either as a profession or on a personal level.
It won't be the next manager but the one after that Meath will become competitive again - MO'D 2016

seafoid

You're such a pussy, Sheehy. I thought you had a point about gay marriage you wanted to make.
Do you think this is an issue where the law can help?
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

muppet

Quote from: thejuice on November 08, 2014, 04:09:33 PM
I don't give much of a damn about gay marriage if it is passes or not but I don't think it should be a criminal offence to not support it either as a profession or on a personal level.

It is an interesting case though.

Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.

My instincts are that my religious freedom or sexual orientation shouldn't impact on someone else's religious freedom or sexual orientation, but it will be interesting to see what the courts think.
MWWSI 2017

LCohen

#43
Quote from: muppet on November 08, 2014, 04:22:47 PM
Quote from: thejuice on November 08, 2014, 04:09:33 PM
I don't give much of a damn about gay marriage if it is passes or not but I don't think it should be a criminal offence to not support it either as a profession or on a personal level.

It is an interesting case though.

Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.

My instincts are that my religious freedom or sexual orientation shouldn't impact on someone else's religious freedom or sexual orientation, but it will be interesting to see what the courts think.
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe. I would say the freedom to think but religion itself doesn't encourage people to think.

Religious freedom is not the freedom to act anyway you like and then to justify on the basis of religious belief. I could claim that my religious beliefs are that females should not be educated. A failure to send my daughters to school would still fall foul of the law. A refusal to teach girls/women at my school or university would land me in difficulties with my employers and indeed the law. I would still have the religious freedom to believe though.

If there are any "strong arguments" as to why people should be discriminated based upon their orientation for consensual, private sexual behaviou then my all means detail them here. If there are no such "strong arguments" then it would be wrong to pretend that there are.

muppet

Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 04:33:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 08, 2014, 04:22:47 PM
Quote from: thejuice on November 08, 2014, 04:09:33 PM
I don't give much of a damn about gay marriage if it is passes or not but I don't think it should be a criminal offence to not support it either as a profession or on a personal level.

It is an interesting case though.

Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.

My instincts are that my religious freedom or sexual orientation shouldn't impact on someone else's religious freedom or sexual orientation, but it will be interesting to see what the courts think.
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe. I would say the freedom to think but religion itself doesn't encourage people to think.

Religious freedom is not the freedom to act anyway you like and then to justify on the basis of religious belief. I could claim that my religious beliefs are that females should not be educated. A failure to send my daughters to school would still fall foul of the law. A refusal to teach girls/women at my school or university would land me in difficulties with my employers and indeed the law. I would still have the religious freedom to believe though.

If there are any "strong arguments" as to why people should be descriminated based upon their orientation for consensual, private sexual behaviou then my all means detail them here. If there are no such "strong arguments" then it would be wrong to pretend that there are.

Their behaviour in private is not what being impacted upon in this case. It is the complete opposite in fact and very much a public declaration.

I am no fan of organised religion, however to simply dismiss it as an absence of thinking and to declare that there are no such strong arguments, as you have done, is hardly a reasonable position. Many people genuinely believe it is evil. I don't agree with them at all, but education is the answer, not forcing them to your way of thinking.
MWWSI 2017